Do Churches and Ministries Really Want What God Wants?

Recently, a dear friend, an administrative assistant of a local church, who had been serving the church for over thirty years, was dismissed. No reason was given, except that the church leadership thought it was "time for a change." She had not only done nothing wrong, but she had gone the extra mile in church work during pastoral transitions, staff changes and building changes and stresses. She is hurting and suffering through another church related decision and change which may have nothing to do with what God really wants.

I say this with over forty years of ministry in different sized churches and a denominational leadership ministry in which I participated in many of those same kinds of decisions. We all claim to follow God's direction and leading, and some decisions are even "prayed over," but to be frightfully truthful and exceedingly honest, many of those decisions are human based business operational desires and mandates. Very little Scriptural evidence exists for such decisions. They are simply what some hot-shot "successful" pastoral or ministry leader touts or teaches as the best way to advance the "cause of the kingdom of Christ." Yet, I have often wondered if what we are advancing are our own little fiefdoms and not God's kingdom wants and revealed truths.

Many of these decisions, especially regarding staffing and church direction, are whims of an aggressive senior leader or leaders who want a "place" and a name in their denominational purview. Such a statement would be hotly debated by many, yet the question remains -- do we really want what God wants for our church or ministry? Unless we have heard from God specifically and particularly and clearly, we are left with impressions of what God may want. We claim to read the Bible and follow its directives, yet I would say in confession that most of us are woefully ignorant of the will of God revealed in the totality of Scripture. Some of us don't even care to check the Bible in an important decision and follow our own, often misguided personal preferences. Some of us even defend those preferences, doing what we want and hoping beyond hope that God is pleased with what we have decided. No matter who gets hurt and no matter who pays the price.

Quite some time ago I read the story of the pastor who wrote that famous hymn, "God Be With You Til We Meet Again." He and his wife had been called from their small country parish to a bigger, more visible and prestigious city church. As they were seated in their wagon with their moving goods, this song was sung by their small congregation and such love flowed that the pastor decided to stay and continue to minister to them. Success in a larger ministry and church no longer mattered. The lives and hopes and dreams of his people mattered. He reinstated himself under God as their shepherd.

John Maxwell and many others have said, "People don't care what you know until they know that you care." And that is true. We have to stop wanting what we want and start listening--really listening--to what God wants from us for our people. Yes, sometimes hard and difficult decisions have to be made. Yes, sometimes people need rebuked and will be unintentionally dismissed and hurt and disregarded. But those times are rare, and should be rare. We need to stop thinking about our "careers" and our "successes" and "wins" and start submitting--yes, submitting-- to what God really wants. That may mean personal oblivion for us in ministry and being okay with the place and assignment God has for us. We say it is all about the honor and glory of God. Well, we need to really mean it and proceed in that direction.

Another Look At Black Lives Matter and Racial Reconciliation

Instead of rehearsing what we all know about the Black Lives Matter movement and why it sprang up in our day, I want to admit several things as an older white, evangelical male and a retired pastor, now a church consultant. I took the plunge and submitted to a "racial reconciliation" course well-taught by a friend and a professor from Lancaster Bible College this summer. I learned much about our racial problems and dived into how to tackle them in our present tension-filled day.

First, we must admit, if we are truthful and frightfully honest, that we live in a prejudiced society and systemic racism abounds in America today. Many would deny this or refuse to admit it and address it, but there are plenty of examples of institutional racism today, not merely against blacks, but Asians and American Indians and others. By refusing to address these issues and uncovering the racial biases in our society, we simply perpetuate racism and its ugly results. Being "color-blind" to racial injustice or refusing to know and address "white privilege" only adds fire to the Black Lives Matter movement and its consequences.

I grew up in a home where racism was not talked about but practiced by my parents in their opinions of other races. While they would personally disavow such racism, my father used the "N" word freely, as well as "spics" and other pejoratives in speaking of blacks and Hispanics and Asians. As long as they kept "their place," we were okay with them. Later in life I ministered in a predominantly white church when a young white woman and black man came to me for marriage counseling and help. The woman's parents were shocked and upset that their daughter would think of union with a black man. They wanted me to stop the wedding and help their daughter come to her senses. This was obviously racist, but they insisted the "normalcy" of their request. 

I read an interesting and provocative summary of a speech given by Wilfred McClay, author of Land of Hope: An Invitation to the Great American Story, called "Rediscovering the Wisdom in American History" (https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/rediscovering-wisdom-american-history/) In that speech he rehearsed the problem of racism and the Civil War (or War Between the States, if you come from the South). What he said and wrote was insightful -- "How, we wonder today, could such otherwise enlightened and exemplary men as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have owned slaves, a practice so contradictory to all they stood for? As I write in the book: There is no easy answer to such questions. But surely a part of the answer is that each of us is born into a world that we did not make, and it is only with the greatest effort, and often at very great cost, that we are ever able to change that world for the better. Moral sensibilities are not static; they develop and deepen over time, and general moral progress is very slow. Part of the study of history involves a training of the imagination, learning to see historical actors as speaking and acting in their own times rather than ours; and learning to see even our heroes as an all-too-human mixture of admirable and unadmirable qualities, people like us who may, like us, be constrained by circumstances beyond their control. . . ."

He goes on to say -- "The ambivalences regarding slavery built into the structure of the Constitution were almost certainly unavoidable in the short term, in order to achieve an effective political union of the nation. What we need to understand is how the original compromise no longer became acceptable to increasing numbers of Americans, especially in one part of the Union, and why slavery, a ubiquitous institution in human history, came to be seen not merely as an unfortunate evil but as a sinful impediment to human progress, a stain upon a whole nation. We live today on the other side of a great transformation in moral sensibility, a transformation that was taking place but was not yet completed in the very years the United States was being formed."

The point is that solutions to incipient systemic racism are complicated and will take serious time and costly efforts. Marches only point to the depth of the problem and do not solve it. In fact, they may merely exacerbate the racial tensions now so apparent. We need policy change, not merely protests. Policy change comes in stages, slowly and sometimes imperceptibly. Elections help, but do not guarantee such change.

What has to change and be successfully addressed is the heart of people and the soul of a nation. God alone can change the heart and inform the emotions and mind to a better, more biblical model of transformation. The Gospel of Christ, submitting to Jesus as Lord and Savior, is not merely a religious point, but a moral transformative point. Conversion to Christ, real and deep conversion, as well as biblical instruction and implementation can transform racial inequality to racial justice and compatibility.

The naysayers will claim that such transformation has not worked, and that churches have been often staging grounds for racism and inequality. I would simply point to the fact that many church goers are not really Christians. They name the Name but deny the implications of deep, heart change and transformation of thoughts, intents and motives. I say this as a pastor and denominational worker who has seen and preached to and taught thousands of Christian adherents and worked with dozens of churches of many sizes and stripes. Deep seated change requires costly discipleship and rigorous study and application of Scriptural truth.

The question in my mind is, Are we willing to wade through the difficult and time-consuming task of policy change and discipling others? Are we willing to take a hard look at ourselves in he mirror of history and admit the wrongs and seek to correct the conscience of a nation?

Reflecting on Ernest Reisinger Biography by Geoff Thomas

A newly released biography of the life and times of Ernest Reisinger has been written for Banner of Truth publishers by Pastor Geoff Thomas of Wales. Though written in 2002, it has recently caught my attention through friends at Banner of Truth and Grace Baptist Church of Carlisle, PA. For the many who do not know Ernie Reisinger, or his history, Ernie was one of the founding fathers of Reformed Baptist history in the states, particularly in south central PA in Carlisle with the establishment of Grace Baptist Church.

Ernie was one of my early mentors and friends. He served for two years at a mission church of Grace Baptist Church in Mechanicsburg, PA, and I had the privilege of being a summer intern while a student at Westminster Theological Seminary in the early 1970s in Philadelphia. On a personal note, Ernie helped finance part of my education at Westminster and provided money to repair the transmission of an automobile we desperately needed in those years. The money was always "anonymously" given, but we knew where it came from. God used Ernie Reisinger in my life and formation as a minister of the gospel of God's grace. He could never sing very well, and those Sundays I led the small congregation in Mechanicsburg, he would "grunt" along behind me in leading worship hymns. He made a joyful "noise" to the Lord!

Ernie was always handing out books, especially Reformed Puritan literature, which he came to love and follow. The biography describes his business prowess in leading the Reisinger Brothers construction company and its many projects in those years, his friendship with the Irwin family in Carlisle and his massive influence in the establishment and theology of Grace Baptist Church. This church, like no other Baptist church in the area, held to the Reformed standards of theology and worship in the London (and then Philadelphia) confessions of faith, which followed much of the theology in the Westminster Standards (Confession of Faith and Catechisms). Ernie gained his theological knowledge as a layman, a very serious student of Scripture and theology. Wanting to be ordained as a legitimate professional pastor, he was so ordained by the Carlisle Church to minister in Mechanicsburg, at which place he stayed for two years.

I am not in the same place ecclesiastically in my present ministry assignments. In fact, I am a retired minister of the Brethren in Christ Church, a church that follows the Wesleyan-Arminian theological positions and its Anabaptist heritage. I have been a Reformed Baptist church planter, an Orthodox Presbyterian pastor and a Brethren in Christ pastor and church leader in my ministry history. I now work as a church health consultant in the Northeast for NCDAmerica out of Michigan. That is another story, but suffice to say, Ernie helped establish my Reformed roots but also soured my ecclesiastical associations with Reformed Baptists.

Like Ernie, I became enthralled with the Reformed faith and historic Puritanism as a student at Dickinson College while attending Grace Baptist Church in Carlisle. The minister then, Walter Chantry, took me and other students under his wing, and mentored us in the Reformed faith and life. Ernie was a historical part of that training and development. However, his theory of doctrinal purity and church purity became the foundation of Grace Baptist and other RB (Reformed Baptist) churches in the northeast. As stated in his biography, in Reisinger's pamphlet, Doctrine and Devotion, he wrote: "God must be worshipped in truth as well as in Spirit. Truth can be stated in real words, and when that is done there is Christian doctrine. To be a disciple of the Lord Jesus without knowing what Christ taught must be a vain quest. It is impossible to over-emphasize the importance of sound doctrine in the Christian life. Right thinking about all spiritual matters is imperative if we are to have right living. As men do not gather grapes of thorns, nor figs of thistles, so sound Christian character does not grow out of unsound doctrine. The church that neglects to teach sound biblical doctrine weakens church membership. It works against true unity. It invites instability in its fellowship. It lessens conviction and puts the brakes on vital progress in the congregation."

This thinking and the application of it framed the basis of Grace Baptist Church. While many would rejoice over its stance for historic orthodoxy after the likes of Calvin and others, others would have a less than stellar opinion. Other Christians and other churches in the Carlisle area, just as rooted in the fundamentals of biblical authority and inspiration, but avowedly non-Calvinistic would label Grace Baptist as cold, severe, judgmental and downright mean to those who do not come up to their "standards" of faith and life. While I do believe there was much heart warmth and devotion in Ernie and the other elders of Grace Baptist, their refusal to sponsor Billy Graham Crusades and other evangelistic endeavors in that area placed them outside of regular evangelical thought and practice. And to some extent, they revelled in their separateness and distinctiveness.  I know this to unfortunately be the case, having served a Brethren in Christ Church in the town in the 1990s.

Ernie was foremost an evangelist. He loved to preach and teach the gospel and reach out to many in that area and beyond with the Good News of Jesus. I loved his passion for souls and that passion rubbed off on me. However, I found that his passion for Calvinism almost matched his passion for souls, thinking that true religion can only be found in true doctrine. The many non-Calvinists who love the Lord are therefore not merely in error, but following a false God. So, the heritage of Ernie and Grace Baptist Church is also joined with this isolation from other serious Christians and churches. The impression that has often been given is, "we have the truth, and you must come to our side to find it."

The biography is just as much a biography of of Grace Baptist Church in Carlisle as of Ernie Reisinger's life. I love the people my wife and I have known from Grace Baptist. I believe they are serious Christians who see Calvinism as the only way to think and live. I know they are earnest and passionate about that system of doctrine. But to judge others and almost make the claim that other Christians are almost "sub-Christians" is wrongheaded and damaging to the unity of the Church of Christ. The problem I have seen in Reformed circles, first as a Reformed Baptist and the as an Orthodox Presbyterian, is that such a faith becomes judgmental and cold-hearted to others in the Christian camp. It can become self-congratulating and self-consuming. It can blunt what Ernie spent much of his life in evangelizing others for the gospel of God's grace. It can forget about the love of God and replace that with the harshness of God's choice of those who believe. All of this I have also seen and witnessed in Reformed circles and churches.

I am still thoroughly Reformed in thought and doctrine, but much more open to other systems of Christian doctrine and life and thought. I believe when we all get to heaven we will have much to learn in how God has worked on this earth and among people. We may even be surprised that many of those we doctrinally fought against are there beside us praising God and singing with the angels. I do commend Geoff Thomas in his biography of Ernie Reisinger and praise God for the life of a great man of God.

Reflecting On The Message of Simon & Garfunkel for Today

With more and more people quarantined at home due to the spread of the coronavirus, I have had time to do some reflecting on the songs of Simon and Garfunkel from the 1960s. For me, a Baby Boomer, these were the stirring upheaval years of the Vietnam War, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), and folk artists like Simon and Garfunkel. To modern ears these mournful, folksy, haunting songs have little of the brashness and harshness of modern popular music. What they do contain, however, are reflective songs of a changing America and a changing society. They signaled a major shift from the swoon songs of the 1950s and the post-war dance songs that my parents enjoyed. What do they tell us for today's world and society?

They tell us that separation and aloneness can be both a boon and a sadness for people. Isolation can protect us, but leave us sad and lonely, prone to no one caring or even knowing our state — listen to "I Am A Rock" and "A Most Peculiar Man" —
I've built walls
A fortress deep and mighty
That none may penetrate
I have no need of friendship, friendship causes pain
It's laughter and it's loving I disdain
I am a rock
I am an island

I have my books
And my poetry to protect me
I am shielded in my armor
Hiding in my room, safe within my womb
I touch no one and no one touches me
I am a rock
I am an island

And a rock feels no pain
And an island never cries.

------------------------------------------------

He was a most peculiar man.

He lived all alone within a house,
Within a room, within himself,
A most peculiar man.

He had no friends, he seldom spoke
And no one in turn ever spoke to him,
'Cause he wasn't friendly and he didn't care
And he wasn't like them.
Oh, no! he was a most peculiar man.

He died last Saturday.
He turned on the gas and he went to sleep
With the windows closed so he'd never wake up
To his silent world and his tiny room;
And Mrs. Riordan says he has a brother somewhere
Who should be notified soon.
And all the people said, "What a shame that he's dead,
But wasn't he a most peculiar man?"

They also tell us that class separation and a desire to be "top dog" and admired by all can end in bitterness and suicide — "Richard Cory"

They say that Richard Cory owns one half of this whole town,
With political connections to spread his wealth around.
Born into society, a banker's only child,
He had everything a man could want: power, grace, and style.

But I work in his factory
And I curse the life I'm living
And I curse my poverty
And I wish that I could be,
Oh, I wish that I could be,
Oh, I wish that I could be
Richard Cory.

He freely gave to charity, he had the common touch,
And they were grateful for his patronage and thanked him very much,
So my mind was filled with wonder when the evening headlines read:
"Richard Cory went home last night and put a bullet through his head."

They haunt us with the desire to be "homeward bound" and feel rest from the frantic pace of work, popularity and busyness —

I'm sittin' in the railway station
Got a ticket to my destination
On a tour of one-night stands
My suitcase and guitar in hand
And every stop is neatly planned
For a poet and a one-man band

Tonight I'll sing my songs again
I'll play the game and pretend
But all my words come back to me
In shades of mediocrity
Like emptiness in harmony
I need someone to comfort me

Homeward bound
I wish I was
Homeward bound
Home where my thought's escapin'
Home where my music's playin'
Home where my love lies waitin'
Silently for me

And finally they tell us that we all need to be like "bridges over troubled waters" for one another —

When you're weary, feeling small
When tears are in your eyes, I'll dry them all (all)
I'm on your side, oh, when times get rough
And friends just can't be found
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay me down
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay me down

When you're down and out
When you're on the street
When evening falls so hard
I will comfort you (ooo)
I'll take your part, oh, when darkness comes
And pain is all around
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay me down
Like a bridge over troubled water
I will lay me down

So take some of this "time out" and listen carefully to the messages that meant so much in the 1960s and beyond.

Rights, the Constitution, and the Partisan Divide

In a recent issue of Imprimis newsletter put out by Hillsdale College, a privately funded conservative school, Christopher Caldwell talks about "The Roots of Our Partisan Divide." (https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/roots-partisan-divide/) In that speech and from his book, The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties, Caldwell, among others, traces the roots of the extreme political and social divide in America between the progressive left and the conservative right back to the vestiges of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Passed by Congress to seek to address the segregation of the Jim Crow southern states, it was slowly expanded to outlaw discrimination in every sector of society and every walk of public and private life. He notes, "They did so by giving birth to what was, in effect, a second constitution, which would eventually cause Americans to peel off into two different and incompatible constitutional cultures." This was done by taking a "lot of decisions that had been made in the democratic parts of American government and relocate them to the bureaucracy or the judiciary." Consequently, while Americans never voted for bilingual education, the office of civil rights simply established it. Sexism cases for women's rights have exploded to this day with the #metoo movement. Hate crimes are now against every form of anti-lesbian or homosexual or transgender speech or actions or legislation.

"Let's say you are a progressive gay man in a gay marriage with two adopted children. The civil rights version of the country means everything to you . . . Quite likely, your whole moral idea of yourself depends on it too. . .. You are on the side of the glorious marchers of Birmingham, and they are on the side of Bull Connor. To you, the other party is a party of bigots." "Gender fluidity" taught in the first grade in public schools cannot be defeated or even complained against. You are designated as a bigot, a hate monger. "To you, the other party is a party of totalitarians." So, indeed, the sky may be falling in the future for this American republic. Whether we agree with Caldwell or not, it is fairly evident there is a great divide in this country that never existed, even during the decade of the 1960s.

I went to college in the 1960s. We had sit-ins, marches, the  SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) who marched beside my ROTC cadet corp placing roses in the gun barrels that we carried. The Vietnam War was moving ahead, and truth be told, well-heeled students in colleges got deferments while garage mechanics out of high school were drafted. A two-tiered society resulted. The war was most unpopular and my wartime friends who came back from Nam were booed and hated or dismissed for their efforts. Many of them suffered PTSD effects. It took many years and much pain to honor these wounded veterans. However, that revolution of the sixties took place against a background of morality rooted in the Judea-Christian codes of the Bible. Little did we know then that "civil rights" meant a dismissal of those codes and the substitution of it for individual rights individually defined.

I trace this great divide today to spiritual and religious reasons. Leonard Sweet said way back in 2009 that we are living in a "cut flower society," where the flower of religious activity may exist, but there is no longer any rooting in the Scriptures or in any Judaeo-Christian law code. Young adults now dismiss any absolute truths, favoring whatever "truth" may seem to be in their favor for the moment. Thus, Bernie Sanders' promise of free education and universal health care especially for those with higher educational or health debts is most appealing. It doesn't matter how we pay for it, since the government becomes our mother and father, entitling us to these human freedoms and benefits. This is pure socialism and may indeed move into pure communism or Marxism as the anti-God trends travel down the road. Then we will be without God and without freedom rooted in a God-centered framework of morality. Individual freedom of whatever sort will be substituted for responsible social freedoms. And the sky will indeed fall.

Pro, Anti, Reluctant Trump Voters -- Is That All there Is?

Two recent articles that attempt to explain why evangelical Christians would vote for President Trump in the 2020 elections have caught my attention -- Andrew Walker's "Understanding Why Religious Conservatives Would Vote for Trump" and John Fea's response in "The Problem with the Reluctant Trump Voter: A Response to Andrew Walker's National Review Essay." Walker is from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and Fea is from Messiah College. They are from different theological stripes, and see most every issue from those stripes. One is apparently a "reluctant Trump" voter and the latter is an anti-Trump voter. The arguments seem to be focused on the person of Trump and his morality (or lack thereof) and the extent of progressivism in the Democratic Party among the candidates now running. How about "in spite of" Trump voting?

I did not cast my vote in the 2016 election for Trump. Neither did I cast my vote for Hillary Clinton. Nor did I cast my vote for any Green Party candidate or any other write-ins. People would say I am a "disengaged" voter, that I wasted an opportunity to exercise my freedom as an American voter. Perhaps. I am also a white, evangelical male, who attends an Anabaptist-Wesleyan church (Brethren in Christ) but who has also been an orthodox Presbyterian as well as a Reformed Baptist in my personal and ministerial career. It wasn't that I could not make up my theological mind, but rather that I sought to follow God's direction in my life and ministry through the years, and that direction led me to seemingly diverse theological and ministerial positions as well as training. So, it would not be surprising to say that I disagree with Walker as well as with Fea on a number of points.

I seek to be a biblical Christian. That means that I do not blindly follow the Religious Right or the Moral Majority or the Anabaptist counter cultural "upside down" kingdom model either. I vote, when I vote, on informed moral, cosmological or world-and-life viewpoint grounds. I am first of all a citizen of heaven through allegiance to Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior. I am an "alien" to the citizenry of any world order, including America. I love my country, no doubt, but I am not dependent on my country and its political woes or suppositions to determine my destiny. I obey my governmental leaders according to the precepts of Romans 13 in the Bible. I am not blind to their prideful, often ostentatious, lies and subterfuges and moral misgivings.

As with other evangelical believers, I believe abortion on demand is a horrific tragedy and a Holocaust of mega-proportions. But I also believe and know that no Supreme Court decision, nor a pro-life President, nor a Republican Congress can ultimately stop the practice or the inane thinking that the child in the womb is not a person in his or her own right. I remember the Christian Jimmy Carter as President as one of the most moral, yet probably most ineffective, President we ever had. Where are the Abraham Lincoln's of today? I have been part of an activist pro-life group in upstate New York when I pastored a church in Schenectady, NY, but also sought to pray for and discuss the issues with the Planned Parenthood president, a move that my pro-life brothers and sisters saw as tyranny of the worst sort. All people everywhere need the Lord, no matter their party or abortion affiliations.

So, I guess I am an "in spite of" Christian in America. Will I vote for Donald Trump in 2020? That will be up to prayerful direction sought from God and the Bible, not from the political ranker from either party. The bigger issue is not how moral or immoral a candidate for President is, but rather does his or her worldview comport with a biblically defined and crafted viewpoint? If neither does, then neither gets my vote. Many would disagree with me or say I am "compromised" in my thinking. So be it. The larger question always for me is the biblical salvation status of Donald Trump or the Democratic contenders for that party. At the end of the day, that is what will really matter, and should matter to us all.

The Partisan Divide and Its Recovery

I am a subscriber to Imprimis, a conservative newsletter published by Hillsdale College, a privately funded college with traditional Christian values and insights. In the latest issue of Imprimis, Christopher Caldwell, Senior Fellow, The Claremont Institute Author, The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties, talks about the deepening partisan divide in this country (See https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/). In that article, Caldwell says that "American society today is divided by party and by ideology in a way it has perhaps not been since the Civil War." He then goes on to point to "strands" that have produced such a divide, including the Vietnam War, role of women, and the "emergency" Civil Rights Law of 1964 that has gone way off the original mark and is now used for every divide between Republican and Democrat, conservative and liberal, Christian and non-Christian that we see today. For me to even quote or refer to Imprimis puts me in the "bigot" category, seemingly unable to carry on a civil discussion with people of opposing viewpoints.

I must, however, take exception to this caricature (or even reality to some). In my ongoing role as a retired pastor and a current church health consultant (for NCDAmerica), I am fully aware of several realities in this partisan divide that Caldwell and other conservatives portray. It is always easier to critique and analyze the problems rather than to do the hard work of curing or alleviating the problems. It is not that I disagree with the analysis, but I am reminded of taking a graduate course in a highly recognized seminary where I raised the theological question -- "If our understanding of the Bible is so 'air tight' why don't those on the other side ever deal with these arguments?" The answer from our professor was simple--"They never read our journals, never digest our books and never engage with us in any way." That is part of our problem today, isn't it? We don't really read or talk with one another, especially on opposing sides of the aisle. Caldwell and others like him are hardly ever read, and when they are read, they are dismissed as bigots, hate mongers, and so forth. So, my first point is, Why can't we honestly read one another? Why can't we really "hear" one another, not merely listen? 

I am a Baby Boomer, a child of the late 1940s, a teenager of the 1960s, having seen America transform from the values of the 1950s to the radical ideas and concepts and precepts of the 1960s and later years. I have ministered through the raucous 1970s, the "me" generation of the 1980s, the economic tensions of the 1990s and the "new age" of the 2000s. I have spoken to and with people from every generation in those years. While perspectives and assumptions have radically changed, people hardly ever change. Fears of the 1960s are fears of the 2000s. Technological advancements have separated, not united us, and the beast we have launched with the internet of the 1970s has become all consuming and threatens to devour its children. It is not that we should go backwards, but are we really prepared to go forwards? The greatest needs of economic and job security, fairness, safety for us and our children, peace at home and abroad are still there, still behind all the rhetoric. It is not a matter of "civil rights," but rather a matter of human rights, of Constitutional rights, of being able to live and speak and exist freely as a society, not merely as isolated individuals.

So, here's a radical thought--get to know and listen to your neighbors, especially the ones who disagree with you, but have the same needs as you do. Engage in civil discussion, even when it seems hopelessly insane to do so. Reject the anger, vitriol, hatred, narrowness that often defines people. Agree to disagree. Prove that you are no bigot, no hate monger, but rather a follower of Jesus Christ who believes in his principles. Take the admonition of Paul to Timothy seriously -- "Refuse to get involved in inane discussions; they always end up in fights. God’s servant must not be argumentative, but a gentle listener and a teacher who keeps cool, working firmly but patiently with those who refuse to obey. You never know how or when God might sober them up with a change of heart and a turning to the truth, enabling them to escape the Devil’s trap, where they are caught and held captive, forced to run his errands." ( 2 Timothy 2:23-26. The Message)