The Rule for Living in 2020

What exactly is a New Year’s resolution? It’s a “to do” list for the first week of January.

Study after study shows that, for the most part, New Year’s resolutions aren’t kept well. So, instead of a list of possible New Year’s resolutions, I’m going to offer for your consideration just one rule for living in 2020. This rule is one line from Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount: “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12, NRSV).

This rule is, of course, popularly known as what the Golden Rule. It’s one of Jesus’ most well-known teachings. In many ways this rule is simple and straightforward. Yet applying it isn't always so simple. I wonder if a few guiding principles may help us to live daily according to this foundational ethical principle. Let me begin to get into a few such guiding principles with a case study.

Recently I was on my way home from the office during rush hour and traffic was really heavy. I was making the left turn from Holly Springs Road onto Sunset Lake Road and, as usual, of the two turning lanes, I chose the left one because I knew that the right turning lane ended not far after the turn.

On this particular day, something happened that has never happened to me before in almost nine years of regularly making that same turn. Traffic suddenly backed up as I was turning onto Sunset Lake Road such that I was left blocking the intersection as the light was changing. So I moved over into the other turning lane so that I wouldn’t be blocking traffic.

Then I turned on my left turn signal, needing for someone in the bumper-to-bumper traffic in other lane to let me in before my lane soon ended. The closest driver refused to let me in, no doubt thinking that I was one of those aggravating drivers trying to get a few car lengths ahead in the race to get home. Fortunately, the driver behind him let me in.

This brings us to one of the difficulties in applying the Golden Rule. We often don’t have all relevant information when we find ourselves in a circumstance in which we have the opportunity to exercise the Golden Rule. The driver that wouldn’t let me in may have thought he was applying the Golden Rule well. He likely concluded that I was just trying to break in line and save a few seconds on the trip home and he may have thought he was doing me a favor by showing me that bad behavior shouldn’t be rewarded.

The problem is, in that case, he was wrong about my motivation. I was simply trying to avoid blocking an intersection. Had he known this, my guess is that he would have gladly let me in front of him. As it is, he probably went home with the self-satisfied comfort that he did what he could to teach me a lesson when, in fact, he was just mean.

But let’s say I had been one of those drivers trying to save a few seconds on the way home. Does the driver who wouldn’t let me in have any clue as to why I may have been in a hurry? What if I was running late for a planned family gathering and I just trying to be less late? What if I needed a suit at the cleaners for a meeting the next day and I was trying to get there before they close?

Does the opportunity to teach a lesson to a potentially rude driver rise above the risk that I might instead be hindering a driver with a good reason for being in that other lane? Not in my view. Not letting me in wasn’t going to cost that driver more than a second or two on his trip home, so he would have been better off to err on the side of grace. Plus, the driver trying to get out of the lane that was ending might not have been rude at all. Maybe the route was new to him and he didn’t know the lane he was in ended after the turn until he made the turn.

So I think this is an ancillary rule to the Golden Rule: We rarely have complete information in a situation in which we can exercise the Golden Rule, so we must err on the side of grace. After all, God’s grace in Christ is so deep and so wide that Christ died for the ungodly as we read in Romans 5:6. Christ died for those who, by definition, don’t deserve it. We rarely go wrong in erring on the side of grace when we follow the One who has shown us the way of amazing grace.

This guiding principle that can help us to embrace our sacred purpose of living according to the Golden Rule is one principle of several that I consider particularly important in our culture right now. We all know how polarized, how divisive, how coarse, how corrosive our national discourse has become. So, as we stand at the threshold of what unfortunately is shaping up to be an ugly election year, we perhaps need a reminder of the bedrock principle of the Golden Rule and some of its implications.

In this vein, we must bear in mind that living according to the Golden Rule means always showing respect for others. Don’t you want to be treated with respect? Of course! Do to others as you would have them do to you—respect them. We’d all like to think this doesn’t need to be said. But these days some prominent leaders of our nation in politics, business, and even religion speak publicly as if those with whom they disagree are worthy of no respect whatsoever.

We’re not going to agree on everything. It’s just not going to happen. Yet the Golden rule compels us to respect one another even when we disagree because we must do to others as we would have them to us.

Hand-in-hand with this guiding principle is the importance of refraining from using inflammatory language and derogatory names in our discourse. Do you want incendiary language hurled your way or disparaging labels hung on you? No. Do to others as you would want for them to do to you.

I feel a little silly saying this—it seems like such an obvious application of the Golden Rule. But, unfortunately, hardly a day goes by that there isn’t some headline of a leader of our society using an insulting name against another leader which only deepens divisions and pushes us further away from real solutions to serious problems. Demonization seems to be a glorified pursuit these days.

Golden Rule people just don’t live that way. In this same discourse Jesus commanded us to love our enemies. Demonizing our enemies is incompatible with loving them.

Another related guiding principle is that we must not make broad generalizations about individuals or groups. I’ve got an old van that’s ugly. It’s 20 years old and the paint is faded and peeling. It’s missing a hubcap and the engine makes a loud, weird noise. But it’s handy for hauling pine straw and garbage and that’s the sort of thing for which I typically use it. However, my main car got rear-ended recently and I had to drive that old van for a week while my car was being repaired. I was embarrassed to be seen in that ugly rattletrap so much. Why? Because I figured other drivers were drawing conclusions about me that didn’t fit me.

I know, that’s vain on my part. I’m sorry. But it shows that I’m not comfortable when I even think others may be making broad generalizations about me. So I shouldn’t be making broad generalizations about others because I don’t like it when I even suspect that’s being done to me.

But a lot of the broad generalizations made widely in our culture are much more destructive than the ones that may have been made about me when I was driving that ugly van every day for a week. Many broad generalizations lead us to withhold compassion from people in desperate need of it. Many broad generalizations lead us to put up barriers where we should be building bridges. Many broad generalizations breed increasing discontent where we should be nurturing greater peace through deeper understanding.

Living by the Golden Rule means listening patiently especially when there’s disagreement. Do you like it if your point of view is dismissed out of hand? Do you like it if someone doesn’t really listen to your thinking? No. Do to others as you want for them to do to you. Listen patiently even when you have profound disagreement with someone because that’s what you like for others to do for you.

As obvious as this is, we have a serious patient listening deficiency in our culture right now. There’s an echo chamber filled with ratings-driven, click-dependent pundits more concerned with hearing cheers from those who agree than hearing the thoughts of those who disagree. Those pundits on radio, TV, and the Internet are, through their example, adversely influencing interactions all over the place. Real listening in which we seek points of mutual agreement or at least mutual interest is cast aside in favor scoring points in a debate. As the Apostle Paul said in the so-called love chapter of 1 Corinthians, we all see through a glass darkly. None of us has a corner on the truth and we must humbly relate to others accordingly, affording them the respect of our attentive listening.

Living according to the Golden Rule means defending those who are victims of Golden Rule abuse. Golden Rule people must stand up for the Golden Rule. When we see the Golden Rule violated, we have a duty to speak the truth in love—to say, “No, that’s not right; that’s not the way Jesus taught us to treat others.” This we must do whether the Golden Rule is violated by Republicans, Democrats, or Independents; by conservatives, moderates, or liberals; by Tar Heels, Blue Devils, or the Wolfpack.

William Barclay called the Golden Rule the Everest of ethics.[i] Based on Jesus’ statement of the rule in Matthew, that’s not a bad label. In this instance, Jesus said that the Golden Rule “is the law and the prophets” (Matt. 7:12, NRSV). In other words, this rule sums up what God has taught us about the way we’re to treat others. He also added the phrase “In everything …” In every realm of our living—in politics, business, school, family, church, etc.—we must do to others as we would have others do to us.

Jesus’ formulation of the Golden Rule in Matthew tells us something important about Jesus. He effectively said this rule sums up what God teaches us about how we’re to relate to others. It’s bold for a carpenter out of Nazareth to speak as though God had given him insight into what the main thing is. It’s bold for him to say he knows the heart of God’s will for humankind. If we believe Jesus had the right to speak with such boldness about the will of God for us then we have a duty to make the Golden Rule part of core of our very being.

We live in a terribly fractured society. The fissures are deep and appear to be widening rapidly. Yet we read in Colossians 1:20 that God, in Christ, intends to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross. We are called by Christ to be part of that reconciliation process--to be ministers of reconciliation as we read in 2 Corinthians 5. Living according to the Golden Rule with all of its implications is key to that process.

As basic as this rule is, as widely as it’s claimed to be treasured, it seems to me that it’s routinely disregarded in our culture these days. I’ve entitled this post “The Rule for Living in 2020”. But, of course, the Golden Rule is the rule that must govern our interactions with others every day in every year. Yet in our divided culture, on the eve of a potentially rancorous election year, it seems to me that the Everest of ethics needs special attention. May we embrace our sacred purpose of living by the Golden Rule, because our community, our world, desperately needs to see us doing so.

---

[i] William Barclay, The Gospel of Matthew, vol. 1, rev. ed., 273..

For instance ...

This is for all of you who struggle to find a regular Bible reading discipline. If you have a discipline of regular Bible reading that works for you, that's great. Stick to it. But for those who struggle to find such a discipline, I'd like to give you a "for instance."

Yesterday, instead of my normal morning walk, I decided that it was time to get a haircut. I often listen to the Bible during my morning walk, but I wouldn't be able to do that since I was getting a haircut. I arrived at the barber shop at 7:20 a.m. and there was one customer ahead of me in the chair.  It was obvious that the barber and the customer knew each other well and they were deep in conversation about family members. I was the only other person in the shop. So I took out my smartphone and began my Bible reading through my Kindle app, picking up where I had left off the day before. By the time I got into the barber chair and started talking to Freddie the barber about his twin grandsons and his collard patch, I had read three chapters of Luke's gospel.

When I got in my car after my haircut, before I backed out of the parking space, I pulled up Biblegateway.com on the web browser of my smartphone.  I went to the next chapter in Luke's gospel. Among the many translations offered at Biblegateway, I chose the NIV because there's a speaker icon included with that translation which means I can listen to that version through my smartphone. I had to take a slight detour to pick up something at the cleaners, so it took me close to 20 minutes to get to the office. In that time I listened to another four chapters of Luke's gospel bringing my total chapter count for the day to seven.

This morning Alison, my daughter, had to be at work at WakeMed, Raleigh very early in the morning. That means I would take Natalie, her daughter (and my granddaughter, of course), to daycare. As is the case on most Fridays, I will spend most of the day in my man cave doing sermon work. 

So, when I got up, I put on a wireless headset connected to my smartphone. I've had this headset for over a year and the sound is pretty good and I paid $19.95 for it on Amazon--free shipping with Amazon Prime.  Once again, I opened Biblegateway.com on my smartphone browser and started listening to Luke's gospel where I left off yesterday. I tended to several normal morning chores and ate breakfast. Then I got my laptop and study materials set up in the man cave. Meanwhile, Terri was busily getting ready to head out for work.  After my chores, I stopped listening to the Bible and got Natalie ready to go, fed her breakfast and drove her to daycare. 

This is a morning routine I've been through many, many times, so it doesn't require intense focus, freeing me to devote most of my focus to the Bible verses that were being read to me as I did it.  By the time I had finished the chores and the man  cave set up, I had listened to another seven chapters of Luke's gospel. So, on these two mornings when I didn't do my normal, quiet, early morning walk, listening to the Bible, I still managed to read or listen to 14 chapters of Luke's gospel.

You may have favorite radio shows, music or podcasts that you like to listen to on your morning commute that you're hesitant to give up for Bible listening. That's okay, consider this. Let's say you have a goal of reading through the Bible each year. In order to accomplish that goal, you need to read 3.26 Bible chapters each day on average.  That means you need to read 22.82 chapters each week.

In my two reading/listening sessions of the last two days, I read or listened to 14 chapters of the Bible. But not all chapters are created equal--some are a lot longer than others. The average  chapter length of Bible chapters is 26.15 verses. The chapters in Luke's gospel that I read or listened to over the last two days are longer than the average. I did the math and, when I take into account the surplus verses above the average, I read or listened to the equivalent of 24.287 chapters by verse count in two brief reading/listening sessions in two days. So, if I was working toward a goal of reading the Bible in a year, I would be 1.467 chapters ahead for the whole week in only two brief reading/listening sessions. 

What that means is that, depending on the length of your commute, you might be able to get a week of Bible reading finished in one or two commutes.  So you can still listen to your favorite radio shows, podcasts or music on most days. Depending on your morning routine, you might be able to achieve your goal by listening to the Bible during your morning chores before you even get on the road as I did this morning before I headed out with Natalie for daycare. 

The point is, you can get in a lot of Bible "reading" in only a few minutes of Bible listening. If you have openings in your schedule that allow for some listening time, it only takes a few brief listening sessions to reach significant Bible "reading" goals.  Sure, it's great to have those moments of quietness to devote reverent attention to Bible reading. But if you have trouble finding a lot of moments like that, it certainly can't hurt to absorb some biblical teaching in the manner I've suggested here. Not only will it not hurt, I'm confident that it can help ... a lot. 

A link to Biblegateway.com is below. I suggest this option only because it's an avenue for listening to the Bible for free online. Of course, there are numerous options for downloading audio versions of the Bible so that you don't have to depend on using your web browser.  For those who prefer CD's, you can also get the Bible in that format and listen to it.

One more thing ... I mentioned a goal of reading through the Bible in a year. That's a fine goal. But consider the plan recommended in the Anglican church of reading the Old Testament once and the New Testament twice each year. If you simply read through the Bible once each year, then you will spend roughly two-thirds of your time in the Old Testament.  There's nothing wrong with that. But, if you wish to give the New Testament more equal time, then consider reading it twice during the year. And, if you listen on the go as I've suggested, this isn't an unreasonable goal.

Here's the Biblegateway.com link: https://www.biblegateway.com/

Happy listening!

Government grants, churches and religious liberty

Patrick Henry (1736-1799) was one of the leading figures of the American Revolutionary period, perhaps most famous for his “Give me liberty or give me death” speech in 1775. Nine years after that speech, in 1784, Henry introduced in the Virginia legislature a bill designed to help fund the work of churches. The proposal would send tax dollars from the government treasury to churches as a way to improve life in the state.

You might expect churches to embrace such a bill and, indeed, many did. But some churches opposed the measure with the fiercest critics of Henry’s proposal being Baptists. Indeed, Baptists were so dead set against this piece of legislation that they organized a movement against it. Petitions opposing the bill were sent in from Baptist bodies all across the state. Baptists sent more petitions against the proposal than any other group.

In the end a bill that had a popular beginning failed and historians credit Baptists with derailing the measure. Why were Baptists so strongly opposed to legislation that would have helped the budgets of their churches? It is because Baptists considered church-state separation far more important than any benefit that might come from government funding of their mission. Baptists of the late 1700s agreed with the stance of Baptist hero E. Y. Mullins of the early 1900s, that using tax dollars to aid church work is “the essence of union of church and state” and Baptists opposed uniting church and state. Every Baptist petition sent in opposition to Henry’s bill declared that effort of the government to financially assist churches “contrary to the spirit of the gospel.”

This chapter from Baptist life is likely one of many that Holly Hollman of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC) had in mind in a statement she released earlier this week expressing disappointment over the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer.  Trinity Lutheran Church had been denied a government grant from the state of Missouri for refurbishing its playground because of state law prohibiting taxpayer aid to religion. The High Court ruled that there is nothing blatantly religious about a playground and so denying the grant violated the church’s religious freedom rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. 

The BJC had filed an amicus brief urging the court to uphold Missouri’s denial of the grant because of the church-state entanglements that arise from direct government funding of churches, which has historically been prohibited and which has been explicitly barred by several states. In her statement, Hollman said that, while the court claimed to be standing up for churches with this ruling, it actually worked against “the hard-fought battles of Baptists and other religious dissenters that abolished government controls over religion and secured church autonomy.” Battles like the one Baptists in Virginia waged against Patrick Henry’s bill in the late 1700s.

Traditionally Baptists have believed that churches should not go to the government with their hands out asking for money to be placed in them. They have taken this stand because they have historically considered direct government funding of the church’s mission to represent a union of church and state which Baptists long considered contrary to the spirit of the gospel. After all, when Satan tempted Jesus with the power of the governments of the world, our Lord rejected the offer as the temptation of the devil that it was.

In so doing, Jesus placed a separateness between his mission and the power of government. He did not provide us an example of trying to amass government power or seeking government aid in accomplishing his goals and he died not with the sword of government in his hand but with the spear of government in his side.

In this season that we celebrate the birthday of the land of the free let us rededicate ourselves to advocacy of religious freedom. In so doing, may we affirm the mechanism for protecting religious liberty long cherished by Baptists: the separation of church and state. Where we see that mechanism weakened let us support it in the tradition of our Lord who rejected the power of government as a means of achieving his goal.

Sears and churches in a changing world

I was a seminary student in Fort Worth, Texas from the fall of 1988 until I graduated in the summer of 1991. After graduation I moved to North Carolina where I live to this day. I was the manager of a retail store in Virginia before moving to Texas and within five days of arriving in Fort Worth, I got a job as a part-time sales associate at a three-level, 240,000 square foot Sears store in Fort Worth Town Center on Seminary Drive only a few miles from my seminary apartment. I worked there, selling men's clothing and shoes, for the entire time that I was a student in Fort Worth. 

When I worked for Sears it was the largest retailer in the world. Shortly after I left the company Wal-Mart claimed that title. This morning I saw a news story proclaiming that the company that operates Sears (along with K-Mart) informed the Securities and Exchange Commission that "serious doubt exists" that the the 131 year-old company can stay in business. 

Like many traditional retailers, Sears is having trouble competing with online retailers. In Sears' case, however, several management decisions over the last two decades or so have exacerbated their problems. They are scrambling to come up with some cash by liquidating some real estate holdings and borrowing as they search for a new model that might allow them to keep their doors open. But there's a good chance that many of the 140,000 people employed by Sears might be looking for new jobs soon. 

Last Saturday, Terri and I wanted to get in a little exercise. It was raining, so we went to Cary Town Center Mall to take a walk. We made several passes by the vacant space that housed a Sears location up until it closed about two years ago. After I saw the news story about Sears' woes this morning, I looked up the location where I worked as a seminary student. It closed in 2002.

What's happening to Sears is further evidence that the retail landscape is changing rapidly, but then we all know that our whole world is changing ... fast. As Sears and many other retailers are having trouble keeping pace, so are many churches. A Lifeway study of 2015 revealed that 3,700 churches in this country closed their doors in 2014. The good news is that 4,000 new churches opened their doors that same year. However, one study indicates that about one-third of new church starts fail within four years. So it may appear that church openings are barely keeping pace with church closings, but the reality is probably worse.

Every generation of Christ-followers must prayerfully seek the best ways to translate the good news of Jesus Christ in an ever-changing world. I am convinced that, overall, the church will be successful in this task. Yes, some churches that are resistant to pondering new ways to tell the old, old story may close their doors. But I believe Jesus meant what he said when he proclaimed his intent to build his church and "the gates of Hades will not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18, NRSV).

I was a saddened to learn that Sears' doors may soon close. I'm even more saddened when I hear of churches that struggle to keep their doors open. Yet my occasional sadness at the plight of many churches of our culture is tempered by confidence in the promises of Christ. While the future of some churches may be in doubt, the future of the church is bright.

Why it's a bad idea to destroy the Johnson Amendment

At the National Prayer Breakfast yesterday, President Trump, repeating one of his campaign promises, pledged to "destroy" the Johnson Amendment. This provision of the tax code, passed by Congress in 1954, states that "all section 501(c)(3) organizations [i.e. tax exempt nonprofits] are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office." Setting aside the fact that President Trump is unlikely to make good on this promise even if he really tries, I want to point out why it should be illegal for nonprofits, especially churches, to be actively involved in political campaigns.

Before I get to why political campaigning by nonprofits should be illegal, it's worth noting that this campaign promise doesn't seem to make much sense politically. According to a Lifeway poll of 2015, 79% of Americans disagreed with this statement: "I believe it is appropriate for pastors to publicly endorse candidates for public office during a church service." Only 25% of Americans with evangelical beliefs agreed with the statement. So it appears that the overwhelming majority of Americans, including a huge majority of evangelicals, don't like the idea of ministers endorsing political candidates anyway.

Besides that, the Johnson Amendment is pretty limited. Sure, pastors cannot, in their official capacity as ministers, endorse a candidate for public office. But ministers can get involved in political campaigns on their own time. They can place political bumper stickers on their cars, stick campaign signs on their property and otherwise use their own personal time and resources to promote (or attack) a candidate for public office. They just can't legally do so on the job. 

Furthermore, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC) is onto something when it says that allowing campaigning in churches does harm to the nature of church life. In a statement released BJC Executive Director Amanda Tyler, she said, 

Inviting churches to intervene in campaigns with tax-deductible offerings would fundamentally change our houses of worship. It would usher our partisan divisions into the pews and harm the church's ability to provide refuge. To change the law would hinder the church's witness, threatening to turn pulpit prophets into political puppets.

Okay, but why should it be illegal for tax exempt nonprofits, including churches, to be actively involved in promoting or attacking candidates for public office? Maybe most Americans don't want nonprofits doing political campaigning, maybe the limitations the law places on ministers are limited, maybe campaigning in churches can do harm to the church's witness. But why should it be illegal? 

Simple. The Johnson Amendment assures that taxpayers do not subsidize partisan politicking. It also ensures that tax-exempt entities do not become a conduit for tax-exempt contributions to political candidates. Because it's not fair for taxpayers to subsidize partisan politicking and for tax-exempt organizations to serve as pipelines for tax-exempt donations to candidates, it should be illegal for tax-exempt nonprofits, including churches, to be actively involved in political campaigns.

Repealing the Johnson Amendment will literally require an act of Congress which appears to be unlikely. That's a good thing.

I was a stranger and ...

"...the king will say to those at his right hand, 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for ... I was a stranger and you welcomed me ...' Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you ... a stranger and welcomed you ... ?' And the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was ... a stranger and you did not welcome me ..." Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you ... a stranger ... and did not take care of you?’ Then he will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (From Matthew 25:34-46, NRSV)

This is a portion of one of Jesus' descriptions of the final judgment. Just sayin' ...

Messengers, Not Delegates

There is a discussion playing out in news headlines right now that underscores the reason for a seemingly odd practice in at least some Baptist circles. As you have probably seen, there are deep divisions in the GOP over Donald Trump serving as the presidential nominee of the party. Indeed, opposition to Trump in party ranks is so strong that some delegates to the Republican National Convention are pressing for a change in the rules allowing them to vote their conscience so they won't be forced to vote for Trump.

In general, delegates can't necessarily vote according to their own conscience. By definition delegates attend a convention with delegated authority from some other body to vote according to the instructions of the body that sent them. Delegates are expected to vote according to the instructions of the sending body whether or not those instructions are aligned with their consciences.  

In the Baptist circles of which I've been a part for much of my life, those who register to vote at Baptist conventions or general assemblies are known as messengers rather than delegates. The reason for this seemingly odd terminology is linked to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. One of the implications of this doctrine is that we believe it is wrong to coerce the conscience of a fellow believer (or anyone else for that matter). Messengers, unlike delegates, are expected to prayerfully vote their own consciences at a convention or general assembly. 

Every year it seems there are examples of the press labeling voters at Baptist conventions or general assemblies "delegates" rather than "messengers." Indeed, I've heard quite a few long-time Baptists make this mistake.  Certainly there are more pressing issues facing us than the names we use for convention voters. But it isn't often that we get such a good teaching moment to highlight the fact that many Baptists use the term "messenger" rather than "delegate" and the reason for the difference.

Jury duty ... again

This Wednesday I have to report for jury duty here in Wake County, North Carolina. Originally I was to report about two weeks ago, right in the middle of a cruise that Terri and I had been planning for months. Fortunately, I was able to get a postponement, but, unless I hear something otherwise in the next couple of days, I will have to show up at the courthouse later this week.

This will be the third time in 22 years that I have been called for jury duty. The fist time I was summoned to federal court in Wilmington, North Carolina. In that instance I was selected to serve on a jury and the trial lasted for a full nine days--nearly two full work weeks. The second time I was again selected to serve on a jury for a case in district court in Brunswick County, North Carolina. That trial lasted a full four days and I was elected foreman of that jury.

I don't mean to shirk my civic duty, but I've been asking around and I can't find anyone else who has done as much time in jury service as I have. I haven't taken a scientific survey and I'm sure there are quite a few people out there who have been called more and have served longer on juries. Yet in my circle of friends and family, I have found no one who has been called for jury duty as many times or served as many days as I have. Furthermore, numerous registered voters and/or licensed drivers (master jury lists are compiled from lists of registered voters and licensed drivers) have told me that they have been of jury selection age in North Carolina for 30-plus, 40-plus and 50-plus years and have never been called for jury duty.  

I realize that it's possible to be called for jury duty every two years. Yet after asking around and finding no one else who has served as many times or as many days, I'm starting to wonder how I'm getting so "lucky" about jury service. I'm beginning to have some suspicions about the randomness of the selection process.

If it sounds like I'm complaining, well, I guess I am. Still, I'll be at the courthouse on Wednesday and I'll do my best to serve well as a juror if I'm impaneled. But, to be honest, I'm starting to feel like I've done my time when it comes to jury duty. I hope I get off easy this time by getting excused.

Religious instruction in public schools

You have probably heard about the angry reaction to a homework assignment in a geography class at Riverheads High School in Staunton, Virginia. In an attempt to show students the artistry of the letters of the Arabic language, pupils were asked to copy a phrase that is translated "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is the messenger of Allah." This was a standard assignment from a textbook, not one created by the teacher.

While some of the responses to the assignment may have been over the top, it is easy to see why many were outraged. The phrase that students were asked to recreate is known as the shahada, the first of the five pillars of Islam. From an evangelical Christian perspective, the assignment would be roughly equivalent to asking all students to copy John 3:16. Many Christians balked at students being forced to learn in a public school the fundamental statement of faith of another religion and it's not hard to see why.

This episode illustrates why it is crucial to preserve separation of church and state. Learning about the faith statements of other religions is a fruitful exercise in the proper setting. Loving our neighbors certainly includes getting to know them, including their religion if they have one, especially if that religion is different. 

As an academic exercise, students should learn about other religions. Yet they should not be required to write or say the central affirmation of faith of any religion. The former is an important educational exercise about our world while the latter could be construed as a confession of faith.  

This incident shows how problematic it would be to remove the wall of separation between church and state. If government forces religious instruction on any citizen then that citizen's religious liberty is abridged. If all are not free then none are free. The best way to ensure religious liberty for all is through the mechanism of church-state separation. 

Certainly the timing of this case is unfortunate. Again, Christians are called to love their neighbors, including their Muslim neighbors. Recently our public discourse has included some vitriolic statements against Muslims and the event in Staunton, Virginia could further inflame such sentiments which is tragic. Nonetheless, this controversial homework assignment and the reaction to it reminds us that we are blessed to live in a land that enshrines religious liberty in its founding documents through separation of church and state.  

Keeping Muslims out and shutting down mosques

A certain presidential candidate is getting a lot of attention because he advocates closing the borders of the United States to Muslims. He is, thankfully, being condemned from nearly every direction, it seems. Other candidates from his own party as well as other leaders from his own party have denounced his plan.

But what about the anti-Muslim comment made last month by the same candidate? It was about three weeks ago, in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris, that the same candidate proposed closing mosques in this country. In fact, he said that we would "have no choice" but to shut down some mosques. That comment got some attention, but I don't think it made as big of a splash as this latest one.

In the space of about three weeks, a leading presidential candidate has offered two proposals for addressing terrorism that destroy the notion of religious liberty. Baptists have traditionally proclaimed that if all are not free then none are free. We cannot shut down the houses of worship of any religious group or close our borders to members of any religion and still claim to support religious liberty for all. And if we don't advocate religious liberty for all then we don't support religious liberty at all.

One of the very first Baptists, Thomas Helwys, wrote the very first treatise on religious freedom in the English language in 1612. Helwys wrote, "Let them be heretikes, Turks [i.e. Muslims], Jewes or whatsoever, it apperteynes not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure." John Leland was a Baptist minister and a leader in the struggle for the Bill of Rights in this country. He was one of a few from the revolutionary era writing that religious tolerance was not enough. According to Leland, "all should be equally free, Jews, Turks [i.e. Muslims], Pagans, and Christians." From our earliest days, Baptists have singled out Muslims as they have advocated religious freedom for all.

My primary interest in this matter is not my desire for the success or failure of any particular candidate for office. My passion is for religious liberty which is a God-given right, not a governmental gift or privilege to be taken away from any individual or group for any reason. If our fears drive us to reject the cherished, God-given right of religious freedom then the terrorists win.  

  

What's the hurry about restarting the death penalty in NC?

What's the hurry about restarting the death penalty in North Carolina? There hasn't been an execution in this state since August 18, 2006. After several legal challenges were filed against the death penalty, a de facto moratorium began in 2007. Now a bill is poised to make its way to the floor of the state Senate next week that could pave the way for executions to begin again. 

What's the hurry? 

The fact that Henry McCollum was released from death row here in North Carolina about nine months ago would seem to give us a pretty good reason not to be in a hurry to start executions again. After more than three decades on death row, DNA evidence exonerated McCollum. If it weren't for the moratorium that has been in place since 2007, he almost certainly would have been killed by "we the people" years ago for a crime that he didn't commit. But now, less than a year after such a horrible mistake has been exposed, we are in a hurry to start executions again. 

The case of Alan Gell deserves some mention here as well. He spent four years on death row here in North Carolina before his sentence was vacated in 2002 when evidence previously withheld revealed that Gell was nowhere near the scene of the crime. Even though we know that we were ready to execute at least two innocent men in this young century we are now hurrying to crank up the lethal injections again. 

Of course, there was also the botched execution in in Oklahoma last year. Clayton Lockett, a convicted murderer, was given a lethal injection, but something went wrong. He began writing in pain and mumbling something unintelligible. Doctors on site halted the procedure, but Lockett was pronounced dead 25 minutes later after he suffered an apparent heart attack. The whole process took 40 minutes when it should have taken only a fraction of that.  Yet, even with this recent, serious problem with a lethal injection, lawmakers in this state are hurrying to begin lethal injections.

Maybe we need to slow down a bit and consider whether we should replace the death penalty with life without parole due to the cost of the death penalty if nothing else. Many studies have shown that the death penalty, with its necessary and required appeals process, costs millions more than sentencing an inmate to life without parole. (The cases of Henry McCollum and Alan Gell show us that we can't afford to eliminate the appeals process if we keep the death penalty.) Fox News reported that North Carolina could save $11 million per year by substituting life in prison for the death penalty. We could put a lot more law enforcement officers on the street to prevent murders with $11 million per year.

Death penalty supporters say that this punishment is needed as a matter of justice. Gordon "Randy" Steidl has a unique perspective on that question because he experienced both sides, as it were. He lived on death row and in the general prison population after his sentence was commuted to life. Eventually it was proven that Steidl was wrongfully convicted and he was released. After his experience, Steidl says today, "If you really want to kill someone, give them life without parole. It's worse than dying." When we sentence murderers to life in prison without parole, in a real sense, we take their lives.

My struggle with the death penalty is based on biblical teaching. This study would be a long blog entry in itself. But, briefly, I am moved by the account of Cain who murdered his brother Abel according to Genesis 4. God's punishment of Cain was not death (or even prison), yet Cain said that it was more than he could bear. Furthermore, God said that anyone who killed Cain for his crime would suffer a punishment that was seven times worse. God's example to us in the case of the first murderer was that he should not be punished by death.

The Apostle Paul's teaching that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation in Romans 1 also informs my position on the death penalty. The power of God can transform anyone, including murderers. But not if we give a murderer a lethal injection first. 

To the best of my knowledge, all known first degree murderers in North Carolina are locked safely away from the public in pretty unpleasant places, stripped of their freedom which many call a fate worse than death. So, really, what's the hurry about cranking up the lethal injection machine again?   

Who cares about church style if you don't care about church, period

On April 30, Rachel Held Evans wrote another piece in which she says that the key to attracting millennials back to church is not about trying to make church cool. Indeed, she contends that the effort to make church hipper has the potential to do more harm than good with young adults. Evans cites research indicating  that 67 percent of millennials prefer a "classic" church over a "trendy" church.

All of that may be true, but I think it may miss the main point. In a response to a similar column by Evans two years ago, David Hayward said that the millennials he knows just don't care about church--it does not appear in the scope of their needs. I think he's on to something.

I used to be a fan of The West Wing, a TV show which gave viewers a behind the scenes look at the presidency of fictional president Jeb Bartlet, played by Martin Sheen. In an episode during Bartlet's reelection campaign, one of Bartlet's consultants urged him to support a constitutional amendment against flag burning. The consultant was convinced that such a stance would garner Bartlett a lot of votes because polling indicated that an overwhelming percentage of Americans supported an amendment against flag burning.

Later in the episode, however, another consultant revealed that, in addition to measuring support for a flag burning amendment, she had also measured the passion of respondents concerning the issue. It turned out that most Americans surveyed would claim support for an amendment against flag burning but few really cared one way or the other about the issue.

I suspect the same may be true with the research that Evans cites. Most millennials may say to a pollster that they prefer a "classic" church to a "trendy" church. But my sense is that most of that majority doesn't care much about any church of any persuasion. If such a large majority of millennials are so enamored with classic/traditional churches, then why aren't they packing the pews of such churches (because, in most cases, they aren't)?

Of course, we must not paint with too broad a brush. Many millennials care deeply about the church. Many millennials returned to church specifically because they found a trendy church that they like. Many millennials don't have to return to church because they never left.

While millennials aren't a monolithic lot, there's lots of research suggesting they are are leaving the church in large numbers. Church "style" considerations are not inconsequential in responding to this concern. But maybe a higher priority involves more conversations with millennials about the fundamental nature of the church.

Have we forgotten how radical and exciting the body of Christ is in its essence? That's a good subject for another blog entry or maybe two. Meanwhile, should we expect millennials (or anyone else) to care about the style of the meetings of a body that they don't really care about in the first place?

An uncomfortable intersection

Are there many people out there in the U.S. who now who think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a bad idea? That's the legislation, by the way, that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender or national origin. I have no doubt that there are still some in this nation who are miffed that discrimination in these categories is now barred by law. But not many, right? Don't the overwhelming majority of people in this land now agree that this landmark legislation was a good idea?

Actually we have long albeit uneven history of defending certain rights in the U.S. After all, this country pioneered the enshrinement of basic rights with the passage of the Bill of Rights in 1791. Certainly this is not the only nation to advocate equality for its citizens and our record on civil rights has not always been glowing by any stretch. But when we decide to grant a certain right to the people then we tend to get pretty worked up about any violation of that right.

This nation was the first in history to set forth religious liberty as a basic human right in its founding documents. It goes without saying that adherents to a particular religion tend to be zealous for the beliefs of their faith. Any infringement of religious freedom is typically met with passionate opposition.   

Now we have a controversy over Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA) recently passed in Indiana and Arkansas (and there is a similar bill proposed here in North Carolina). Critics say these measures allow businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Supporters say these laws protect religious liberty.

This is exactly why the remaining debate concerning homosexuality and particularly same-sex marriage has the potential to be especially intense and difficult in this culture.

Many of those who support same-sex marriage see it as a civil rights issue. Many of those who oppose same-sex marriage see it as a religious issue. Emotions run high among those who believe their civil rights or the civil rights of those they love have been violated. Emotions run high among those who believe they are being forced to abandon their religious beliefs. 

I'm concerned that this debate and the actions surrounding it could get really ugly. What am I talking about? It has already gotten pretty ugly. 

Do you remember or do you know the history surrounding the debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1964? It got seriously ugly at times. Deadly ugly. In that case the intersection was between equality and a long tradition of bigotry. Sure, some tried to defend ongoing racial discrimination on religious grounds, but those arguments were always faulty and shrill. 

The debate over same-sex marriage involves an intersection between supporters who see their position as an matter of equality and detractors who see their position as a matter of religion. Actually, there are many defenders of same-sex marriage who build their arguments on religious grounds. In that case the intersection is between opposing religious views and I'm guessing that we all know how messy religious wars can be.

My concern here is not to take a side. I'm just wondering about the answer to this question: Can we navigate such a highly charged debate without doing serious damage to one one another? Can we talk about it without using words that wound and create perhaps irreconcilable differences between family members, friends, church members, co-workers, etc.? Can we keep our actions in support of our respective positions peaceful? Can we strive to understand one another before jumping immediately to attempts to marginalize one another?

Maybe my concern is overblown. After all, the governors of Indiana and Arkansas sought changes in the laws in question in order to address the concerns that have been raised. Governor McCrory has expressed his displeasure with the RFRA proposed here in North Carolina and some legislators whose support was assumed have distanced themselves from it. Interestingly this political back peddling happened not when the LGBT community complained but when big business interests got their backs. 

Be that as it may, the apparently quick rise and fall of these laws, proposed or enacted, may be a signal that opinions on same-sex marriage have shifted to the degree that opponents can expect much less hope of success than in the recent past. Yet I remain concerned that there are still large numbers of people in this country gathered at an uncomfortable and possibly dangerous intersection.

I pray that we find ways to love our neighbors as we navigate this intersection.      

I've got good news and bad news ...

The good news is that charitable giving was up last year; the bad news is that donations to churches dropped ... again.

Apparently Giving USA's annual report on charitable giving in the United States was released last week, but I just found out about it this morning. Contributions to charities increased by 4.4 percent in 2013 as compared to 2012 but remained lower than pre-recession levels. In 2007 (before the recession) Americans donated $349.50 billion to charitable causes while they gave $335.17 billion last year. However, since the end of the recession in 2009, contributions to charities have increased 12.3 percent. 

On the other hand, giving to churches has continued to dwindle. In 2010, 35 percent of charitable giving was channeled to churches. In 2011, the percentage fell to 32 percent and last year it was down to 31 percent. 

As disheartening as these numbers are for those who support church work, there was another figure that really grabbed my attention. According to Gregg Carlson, chair of the Giving USA Foundation, just over a decade ago, churches received over 57 percent of total charitable giving in this country. As of last year, again, that percentage was down to 31 percent.

That's obviously a huge shift in giving patterns in this nation just in the last 10 years. Carlson says that Giving USA attributes this shrinking percentage to the ongoing nationwide decline in church attendance that has continued for years, and this is, no doubt, a big factor. But aren't these trends (declining church attendance and declining giving to churches) indicative of a more fundamental change?

It's clear that, generally, church involvement in the traditional sense just isn't as important to Americans as it used to be. This isn't a new message--there has been abundant evidence for years that things have been moving in that direction. For the most part, within churches, we have done little more than tinker here and there with old formulas hoping that we might reverse these trends. Obviously that's not working in most cases.

I'm not trying to be the bearer of doom and gloom here. Make no mistake, I'm very confident about the future of the church. Jesus stated his intent to build his church and he said that not even the gates of Hades would prevail against it (Matt. 16:18). Christ's church will not only survive, it will succeed. However, the church may well look quite a bit different than many of us are used to going forward.

Meanwhile, traditional expressions of church continue to do a great deal of good in this country. People by the millions worship, support important mission causes, engage in spiritual formation, and form transformational relationships in churches that operate in traditional ways. The "old ways" of doing things in church largely remain a valid means of faithfulness to the New Testament ideal of Christian community. But there are new expressions of Christian community springing up in our culture that are very different yet equally valid.

It's not my purpose to explore these new expressions of church here. I'm just underscoring the obvious in light of a new bit of evidence. The church landscape is changing in this country and it's changing really fast.  

That may be scary to many who are heavily invested in traditional expressions of church in this land. Yet I'm convinced that the command that Jesus gave to his followers in the gospels more than any other still echoes loudly through the Holy Spirit to his followers of this culture: Don't be afraid. In these fast-changing times, as individual followers and as part of the community of faith that is the church, remain faithful to the Lord along your journey of faith and don't be afraid.  

The numbers don't lie, but neither do they tell the whole story

The total population of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida added together is a little over 50 million. That's also the number of displaced persons that were in our world in 2013 according to a U.N. report released today. That's the highest number of dislocated people since World War II. Half of these refugees are children.

The figure doesn't include those who escaped the recent violence in Iraq. I read that 500,000 fled the city of Mosul alone when jihadists overran that Iraqi city last week.   

The numbers are staggering, but they do not come close to telling the true tale of woe of millions who have been forced to go on the run to find a safe place. They don't tell us about the squalid conditions in which many of them live. They don't tell us about the children begging and searching trash cans for scraps of food. They don't tell us about the human trafficking taking place in some refugee camps. They don't tell us of the children who have been stricken with diseases because their parents can't obtain basic immunizations for them. They don't tell us of trying to survive bitter cold and searing heat behind a piece of canvas or plastic. 

Fifty million displaced people is a terrible number but the reality of the daily lives of many of these millions is much, much worse.  

Respect and building bridges

In an article posted this afternoon at the Washington Post web page, NBA coach Doc Rivers tells the story about the incident that led him to stop having his teams pray before games. It was 1999 and Rivers was the head coach of the Orlando Magic. He happened to look up when the team was engaged in its normal pregame prayer and he saw that one player, Tariq Abdul-Wahad, a Muslim, had his arms folded and he appeared very uncomfortable.

Rivers describes himself as very religious and he grew up in the Second Baptist Church of Maywood, Illinois. He says that he has prayed on his knees every night from the time he was a child and he still does. Even so, before the next game, Rivers made a point of telling the team that there were differing religious views represented among them. Instead of the normal group prayer, he asked everyone to close their eyes and he encouraged the players and other coaches to take a moment to compose themselves and to pray silently or simply to meditate as they chose.  

After the game, Abdul-Wahad came to Rivers with tears in his eyes and he hugged him and said, "Thank you. That is so important to me. No one has ever respected my religion. I'm going to give you everything I've got." 

It seems to me that when Christians insist on making a show of praying in places where non-Christians are present that we run the risk of burning more bridges than we build. Certain settings present exceptions, to be sure. But in most cases when we leave unbelievers with little option but to participate, actively or passively, in a religious rite that is not their own then don't we, perhaps inadvertently, express a certain level of disrespect for them? 

True faith can't be forced. Jesus rebuked his disciples every time they staked out a position of power. Sure, we Christians wish that everyone believed in Jesus. But Jesus didn't attract others to follow him by disrespecting them and I don't think his followers will either.  

Government instructions on how to pray

The Supreme court, in a divided 5-4 decision, today upheld the practice of public prayer before town board meetings, rejecting the notion that overwhelmingly Christian invocations violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. There is a lot that I could say about this ruling, and I probably will. However, for the time being, I found it very interesting that Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his majority opinion, gave some Supreme Court guidelines  for appropriate and inappropriate prayers for opening government meetings.

According to Justice Kennedy, prayer that is "solemn and respectful in tone, that invites lawmakers to reflect upon shared ideals and common ends" is okay.  (I suppose in future court cases we might look for the high court to become arbiters of what constitutes "solemn and respectful tone.") On the other hand, prayers that do things like "preach conversion" are not okay. 

That's one thing about government sanctioned prayer. In the end the government starts telling you what to pray and how to pray it. 

Is it fair to lump all Baptists together like that?

The members of Westboro Baptist Church are up to their normal evil. On Saturday they engaged in one of their famous homophobic protests at the University of Missouri. They stood outside the basketball arena in conjunction with a home game holding signs proclaiming hatred and violence against gays and lesbians because the entire Missouri football team was scheduled to be recognized at halftime. A few days ago Michael Sam, a star defensive player for Missouri and a NFL prospect, announced that he is gay.

I doubt that news organizations would have reported Westboro's latest antics except for what the students did in response. They turned their backs to the small group of protesters and formed a human shield. Then they sang the Missouri alma mater. So the protesters could not be seen or heard because of the actions of the students.

I really like what those students did. They didn't get in the faces of the Westboro protesters. They didn't make obscene gestures toward them or trade the church members' curses with their own. They simply turned their backs on them and drowned them out. Nice work!

But the main reason I bring up the latest Westboro protest is the way Yahoo Sports reported it. Assistant Editor Kyle Ringo didn't mention the name of the church in his article on the incident. Apparently he didn't want to give the Westboro folks any of the attention that they obviously sought. 

I initially saw the news about the protest at Yahoo Sports and I assumed that Westboro was behind it. However, I had to go to other news outlets to confirm this.  

I can't blame Ringo for attempting to deny Westboro another moment in the spotlight. I would be for nearly anything that thwarts the group in its hateful agenda. However, I'm concerned that Ringo might have unwittingly lumped all Baptists with Westboro Baptist in his approach.

Consider this line from the article: "Members of a Baptist church stood outside the arena holding signs that condemned the community's and school's support for Sam." In an article that nowhere mentions the specific church, Ringo's approach leaves the impression that this sort of activity could be typical of members of any Baptist church.

There is no question that there is plenty of homophobia to go around in many Baptist circles. There has been, unfortunately, no shortage of Baptist leaders who have, in recent years, grabbed headlines for spewing hatred against against the LGBTQ community. That said, is it fair to lump all Baptists with the singularly virulent homophobia of Westboro Baptist Church?  

In a USA Today piece on Saturday's protest, there are photos showing the Westboro protesters carrying signs declaring messages typical of their rallies such as "Death penalty 4 [homosexuals]" and "God hates [homosexuals]." Many, many Baptists do not share such sentiments.

I have a Baptist pastor friend who says that Baptists are like dogs. (Careful, don't jump to any conclusions before I finish his thought.) "If I tell you that I have a dog," he says, "I haven't told you much unless I tell you what kind of dog it is." Dogs come in a multitude of shapes, colors, sizes and personalities and it is much the same with Baptists.

Some Baptists are welcoming and affirming of members of the LGBTQ community. Many Baptists are welcoming but not affirming. Many Baptists are neither welcoming nor affirming.    

On the face of it, I don't think it's fair to lump all Baptists with the members of Westboro Baptist Church because many Baptists abhor their vile strain of homophobia. That said, to the degree that there is any hatred toward the LGBTQ community among Baptists, it is too much. After all, we follow the one who said the Greatest Commandment, the most important thing we do, includes loving our neighbors as ourselves. Jesus listed no exceptions to this commandment.
======
Addendum: I emailed this post to Kyle Ringo and he changed the article to include the name of the church.   
.

Calling attention to Jesus

In the sermon that I preached yesterday I mentioned a story that pastor and author Rob Bell told about a man that he called Bullhorn Guy. Bell and some of his friends were in the midst of a crowd of people walking toward a concert hall to hear a band. As they approached the venue, Bell could hear a man yelling angrily through a bullhorn. As they got closer, Bell heard the man yelling words like sin, burn, hell, repent, and Jesus. No one was pausing to hear more of what Bullhorn Guy had to say and no one was taking the pamphlets that he was trying to distribute.

Bell said that he wanted to tell that man, "Bullhorn Guy, I don't think it's working ... I actually think it's making things worse."

I agree that Bullhorn Guy's method of calling attention to Jesus is most likely counterproductive in our culture. But it's pretty easy to tell Bullhorn Guy that the way he calls attention to Jesus is probably a really bad idea. A good question for Christ-followers is this: What are we doing to call attention to Jesus?

We can't just stop at telling Bullhorn Guy that his method stinks. We need to make sure that we are dedicated to calling attention to Jesus in loving, Spirit-led ways.

After all, we do consider Jesus worthy of calling attention to, don't we?

Does baptism mean anything at all?

Some years back, Baptist historian Bill Leonard said that questions about baptism used to be about how we do it.  Infants or adults?  Sprinkling, pouring, or immersion?  Stuff like that.  But now, Leonard says, the question has become, “Does baptism mean anything at all?”

Should we care about baptism? If so, why should we care?

Matthew’s account of Jesus’ baptism gives us some great reasons to care about baptism. According to this passage (Matt. 3:13-17), Jesus insisted on being baptized and the Spirit came down and heavenly Father was pleased. 

When Jesus came to John the Baptist to be baptized, John tried to stop him.  He said, “Look, you should be baptizing me, not the other way around.”  

The great John the Baptist tried to dissuade Jesus from being baptized. True, the passage suggests that John tried to stop Jesus because he considered himself unworthy to baptize the Messiah. Reason aside, however, verse 14 tells that John tried to prevent Jesus from being baptized

But Jesus insisted on being baptized. Why?

In his book entitled Simply Jesus, N. T. Wright mentions that Jesus’ baptism is one of numerous events recorded in the gospels that bring together three important vocations of Jesus: Messiah, servant, and God. Wright says that, in Israel’s history, these streams had been separate, but in Jesus they are gloriously brought together in one person.

Matthew’s account of Jesus’ baptism mentions a voice from the heavens which Wright describes as a sudden joining of heaven and earth through which the “royal vocation of the Messiah” is exposed. Wright also joins with many other scholars in noting that “[a]ll the signs are that Jesus understood his baptism as the moment when he was ‘anointed,’ like Israel’s kings long ago …”

In verse 11, we are told that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance—repentance of sin. Jesus had no sins of which he needed to repent. In submitting to John’s baptism of repentance, Jesus, as a servant, identified himself with those he came to save. In the tradition of the Servant Song of Isaiah 53, Jesus “was numbered with the transgressors” (Isa. 53:12, NRSV).

The voice from heaven identified Jesus as “my Son” indicating, in the words of Wright, “Israel’s God was acting through him, in him, as him.” By the way, we should not overlook the mention of the Trinity in this passage as we see references to the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

So, in Jesus’ baptism, we see an example of these three streams, Messiah, servant, and God, coming together in the person of Jesus. If passages like this one are to be believed, then Jesus was much more than a good man and a great teacher. Something much bigger and more wonderful was going on in him and through him. God was becoming King with a view toward seeing God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

And baptism was and is part of that glorious plan.

Jesus insisted on being baptized “to fulfill all righteousness” (v. 15, NRSV). Ben Witherington III understands this phrase to mean that “Jesus will do everything he can and all that is required to fulfill God’s loving plan.” 

What was happening in Jesus’ baptism? There was a glorious joining of the streams of Messiah, servant, and God coming together in the person of Jesus. Baptism was for our Lord one way that he did everything he could and all that was required to fulfill God’s loving plan.

No wonder Jesus insisted on being baptized.

But what does Jesus’ baptism mean for us now?

On a somewhat shallow level, we could say simply that, if baptism was important for Jesus, then it must be important for his followers. Even if we fail to grasp any degree of the meaning behind the ritual, the fact that Jesus insisted on being baptized should be enough to convince his followers to insist on baptism.

Yet there is more to this ritual than we can experience on the surface. In fact there is more to baptism than I can fully explain or, frankly, understand.

One thing that we can see readily is that the heavenly Father was pleased by Jesus’ choice to be baptized as our passage says. This hasn’t changed. When we baptize new believers today I am convinced that the Father says again, “I am well pleased” (v. 17, NRSV).

We can also easily see that the Holy Spirit, God’s real presence, was involved in Jesus’ baptism because, again, the passage says so. This hasn’t changed either. The Holy Spirit is involved in baptisms today just as surely as this was the case at Jesus’ baptism.

I cannot explain all the mysteries of baptism. There is more to it than just water and words.  If I could explain the depths of the meaning of baptism then I would be able to explain the depths of the meaning of love and I can’t do that either.

But I think there is something very important that we see in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ baptism that brings into sharp focus one facet of what baptism means to us today. Again, Jesus said that his baptism would “fulfill all righteousness” (v. 15). Baptism was for our Lord one way that he did everything he could and all that was required to fulfill God’s loving plan.

This also hasn’t changed. When new believers are baptized today they take an important step in doing everything they can and all that is required in fulfilling God’s loving plan. It’s important to note that baptism isn’t the last step in this regard—it's but one step, but an important one. A step that was important to Jesus himself.

Baptism is in part our promise before God and the church that we will leave the water committed to do everything we can and all that is required in every aspect of our lives to fulfill God’s loving plan. Jesus was baptized in part to lovingly identify himself with us—with those he came to save. When we submit to baptism we identify ourselves with him. We mark ourselves publicly as the subjects of this King who got in line with sinners at the Jordan one day and then embarked on a journey that would lead him to the cross of Calvary and to a tomb that he would leave empty.

Does baptism mean anything at all? Oh yeah. Jesus insisted on being baptized and the Spirit came down and heavenly Father was pleased. If it was true then it is true now and it was true then.