ST. LOUIS (RNS)—The question has perplexed philosophers, theologians and scientists for thousands of years: At what point does human life begin?

Missouri lawmakers have declared their answer. By withholding both his signature and his veto, Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon signaled he agreed and recently allowed the legislative answer to become state law.

“The life of each human being begins at conception,” according to Senate Bill 793, which adds new regulations to the state’s 24-hour informed consent law for abortions. “Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.”

The bill makes Missouri the second state to adopt such language after a similar provision became law in South Dakota in 2005 and then survived a legal challenge in federal court in 2008.

Abortion providers will be required to include the language from the bill prominently on brochures that will be required for every woman seeking the procedure—even if they don’t believe the theology the words represent.

“Those are not sentiments that all the world’s religions, or all the people in the state, believe in,” said Paula Gianino, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri.

But supporters of the new law say they see no conflict between religion and the law’s definition of life.

State Sen. Jim Lembke, a Republican and one of the bill’s sponsors, said the language on the new brochures “is not a religious statement. It’s a scientific statement.”

Those with differing beliefs “will have to take all the information given to them and make an informed decision,” Lembke said.

The sentiment expressed in the first of the new brochures’ two sentences—that life begins at conception—has been part of Missouri law nearly a quarter century. Scientists agree that when a sperm and egg unite, a living organism results.

But for philosophers and theologians, things get more complicated with the second sentence about abortion ending the life of a “separate, unique, living human being.”

“The distinction is between human life where you’re talking about an organism as opposed to a human life in a moral sense,” said Bonnie Steinbock, professor of philosophy at the State University of New York at Albany. “Those are two different debates that go back to Aquinas and the issue of ensoulment.”

Aquinas—and Augustine before him—wrestled with concepts first introduced by Aristotle in the fourth century B.C. Aristotle believed a soul could only inhabit a fetus when that fetus began to look human, a timetable he set at 40 days for men and 90 days for women.

The 40-day notion prevailed in the Roman Catholic Church until the 19th century, when Pope Pius IX removed the distinction between souled and unensouled fetuses from church doctrine.

Since then, the Catholic Church has conceded that man can never know empirically when an embryo gains its soul. Pope John Paul II said “the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition of any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo.”

Protestant denominations have a variety of positions on life’s beginnings, although more conservative evangelical churches largely embrace the Vatican’s views.

But other faith traditions disagree and have for centuries.

“The Talmud says that from the moment of fertilization until 40 days, the embryo has a status of being nearly liquid,” said Rabbi Yehiel Poupko, Judaic scholar at the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago. “The question for Jewish law is not when does life begin, but when is the embryo entitled to the justice and compassion of society?”

Islamic law closely follows Jewish law, though different streams within Islam have various views, said Abdulaziz Sachedina, a professor of Islamic studies at the University of Virginia and author of Islamic Biomedical Ethics.

Most Sunni Muslims “believe that life begins at the turn of the first trimester,” Sachedina said.

Hindus believe in reincarnation, so the concept that life beginning “at conception” creates theological problems. “Life cannot begin at conception when our lives have not ended in the first place,” said Cromwell Crawford, a retired professor at the University of Hawaii and author of Hindu Bioethics for the Twenty-First Century.

Critics, including Kate Lovelady of the Ethical Society of St. Louis, say the new law imposes one narrow religious view on others. “A lot of our members don’t believe life begins at conception—that it’s much more complicated than that.”

As polarizing as the abortion debate is, many pro-life and pro-choice advocates agree in principle on the subject of religious doctrine incorporated into government health warnings.

“We shouldn’t be crafting legislation based on differing faith systems,” said Lembke, the bill’s co-sponsor. “I’d much rather use our Constitution.”

Tim Townsend writes for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in St. Louis, Mo.

United States ties for fifth place in global giving. The United States tied with Switzerland for fifth place in a worldwide giving index by the British-based Charities Aid Foundation that measures charitable behavior across the globe. The ranking was based on the United States’ showing in three categories—60 percent of Americans gave to an organization; 39 percent volunteered for a group; and 65 percent were willing to aid a stranger. Australia and New Zealand were ranked as the most charitable countries, followed by Ireland and Canada. Burundi and Madagascar tied for last place. The report was based on data from Gallup’s World Poll, taken in 153 countries and representing about 95 percent of the global population.

Report finds spike in U.S. poverty levels. The number of people in poverty in America increased to its highest recorded point last year, and the poverty rate rose to its highest level since 1994, new statistics show. The Census Bureau released data that showed a significant annual increase in poverty, rising 1.1 percentage points to 14.3 percent in 2009. A total of 43.6 million live in poverty—the highest since recording began in 1959—and up from 39.8 million in 2008. As result of the ongoing financial crisis, social service programs—including faith-based providers—are faced with the challenge of increased needs from individuals and working families, budget cuts and a decrease in individual donations.

IHOP sues IHOP. The International House of Pancakes has sued the International House of Prayer, a Missouri church, for trademark infringement. The restaurant chain—which uses the website IHOP.com—claims the Kansas City church—whose website is IHOP.org—intentionally is misleading customers. The restaurant chain, which started in 1958, has used the IHOP acronym since 1973. Both the church and the restaurant claim around-the-clock operations. Many of the almost 1,500 restaurants in the United States, Canada and Mexico are open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, serving breakfast and a plethora of pancakes. According to the church’s website, it seeks to “combine 24/7 prayers for justice with 24/7 works of justice.” Its “24/7 prayer room” has a schedule of 12 two-hour worship meetings each day. The church declined to discuss the suit beyond a brief statement: “We are aware of the lawsuit. We are reviewing the situation. At this time, we have no comment.”

Calvin College withdraws band’s invitation. Calvin College has canceled a scheduled Oct. 15 concert by the Canadian indie rock band New Pornographers after the band’s name prompted complaints from the local community. Ken Heffner, director of student activities at the Christian Reformed Church-affiliated school, said complaints had poured into the school since the show was announced in August, but wouldn’t say specifically the source of most of them. The band’s name often is interpreted as a reference to preacher Jimmy Swaggart’s insistence that rock music is “the new pornography,” but frontman A.C. Newman has said he took it from a Japanese film called The Pornographers, a dark comedy.

Jon Acuff is the author of the satirical blog Stuff Christians Like and a book by the same title published by Zondervan. In about two years, Acuff has taken a start-up blog from obscurity to more than 1.5 million readers, including many who interact loyally with his site every week.

Brad Russell recently sat down with Acuff to learn more about Stuff Christians Like and the guy behind the stuff.

Tell us about Stuff Christians Like.

Well, it’s really an exploration of the entire culture of faith from a Christian perspective. So, it’s everything from how to raise your hand in church when you worship to silly things we do on the road, like driving like we’re not Christians. I wish there was a bumper sticker that said, “I’m sorry I cut you off, but I’m a Christian that drives like an agnostic.” People have this idea that “I don’t have to have faith when I’m in the car.” We’ll have it when we get to church, but on the way there, we might need to run somebody off the road. My grandmother actually took her ichthus off her car because she didn’t want to make a bad name for God.

One of the things I see in your work is ambivalence about pop culture. You’ll talk a lot about Lil Wayne and Prince, and then you talk about the church being obsessed with being relevant and post-modern. What’s the challenge of the church to navigate that tension, to speak the language of the culture but not worship the culture?

I think it’s a fine line. I think there has been a time when we went from being irrelevant to being obsessed. There’s a pendulum. I think now maybe we are swinging back toward the middle. But somebody asked me, “Do you ever think we’ll be as cool as the world?” And I said, “I hope not.”

We’re not held to that standard. It’s not a popularity contest. It’s not a coolness contest. For me, I use pop-culture references because it’s a common language. When you, in the midst of a big “Jon and Kate” celebrity blow-up, mention them, everyone knows what you’re talking about, so it gives you a chance to use a shared language to jump off of. For me, that’s why I use pop culture. There’s stuff I don’t really care about and think it’s silly, but I know I’ll connect with a larger group of people if I can reflect that but not be obsessed with it, because ultimately, I don’t write a gossip column. I’m not writing TMZ for Christians.

You grew up as the son of a church planter in the Boston area. How did that whole experience shape your humor and observations about the church?

It definitely did. Massachusetts at that time was very focused on Catholicism, so with my dad being a Southern Baptist minister, it was difficult getting a foothold. So, I watched him creatively approach people, creatively approach community, and that shaped how I looked at faith. It wasn’t cookie-cutter. He didn’t have an easy job, so I saw him apply creativity and honesty, and these are things that are important to me now. So, I definitely think it shaped me.

If there were three values that you would say guide your work, what would that constellation of values look like? What’s underneath there?

Well, I guess, honesty is one. Kindness. Mockery just tries to wound. Satire is not mockery. I hate it when people confuse the two. Satire is just humor with a purpose. So, I guess kindness, honesty and maybe accessibility. I don’t want ivory tower ideas, and I don’t want complicated ideas.

For you, where is the line between satire, sarcasm and maybe cynicism?

For me, the difference between satire and mockery is, “Is there a victim?” I ask, “If I write this, does somebody get hurt?” And the other distinction is that satire addresses issues where mockery addresses individuals. If I can stay away from making it personal, all the better. It’s so much better to me to get people to talk about an issue. Who cares about one particular celebrity? If I can talk about divorce, for instance, then people can relate to that and engage with it.

One of the things people praise about your work is that underneath the humor is a profound caring for people that comes through, a great deal of grace and compassion. Do you see the church missing the boat sometimes?

I think we do sometimes. I mean, I write about Christian hate mail. That doesn’t even make sense. We should be the most loving people. We should be the ones who have the most grace, because we have been forgiven the most. So, it’s weird that we’ll give grace to everyone that’s named ourselves, and then won’t give grace to other people, so yeah, I think that’s just weird.

One of my favorite pieces is on “how to break up with your small group.” How do you do that?

Well for me, there have been times when you have a small group, and it just doesn’t fit. It’s just not right. It doesn’t mean they’re jerks or not good Christians. And so for me, I came up with some things to do, like you just make gross desserts so they’ll leave. You just tell horrible stories about bathroom issues you’re having. Or you make a run for the border and just find another group and start going to that group as you start “small grouping around” and get a reputation. Or, you can just be honest. That’s always a possibility.

Any crises in the church that you think we need to urgently address?

I’m always concerned about “deep v-neck syndrome.” We’ve got plunging necklines for our men that are disturbing. And iPads. We have people reading sermon notes from iPads for a sermon about homelessness. That doesn’t make sense.

Tell us a little bit about your process. You appear to have this enormous work ethic with over 750,000 words written in two years. How do you do what you do?

The big part is collecting, capturing the ideas. So many people have ideas, but they don’t ever capture them, and they disappear. I initially capture an idea and write it down on my iPhone. And then sometime later I’ll go back and look at—whether it’s a good idea. Does it fit the site? Does it make sense? Has it been done before?

Then I’ll write a draft, and then wait a week, because you need a week from your work to get objective about it. If I post it that day, I’m too close to it. I won’t see some of the errors in it. So, I wait a week, and then I’ll edit it and post it.

I usually try to stay about three weeks ahead of my site, so I have three weeks written and posted at any given time. That gives me the chance to have a bigger look, so I can say: “Wow, I have two marriage posts in the same week. Let me move that and split it up.” Because if you are a single reader, that’s kind of frustrating.

So what’s next for Jon Acuff?

Figure out the next book. Working on that, spending more time on the site. Being a dad, being a husband, being an employee. We’ll see.

Perfect love, wrote the Apostle John, casts out fear.

For Christians, that simple maxim would seem to be an easy formula for stress-free living. But 2,000 years after those words were written, many disciples of Christ still find their lives dominated by fear—and worse, many Christian leaders believe, their response to it often is indistinguishable from that of the society in which they live.

“What shocks me … is that many Christians have bought into fear as a thoughtful reaction to terrorism, to immigration, to heath care and to many other important issues,” Drew Smith, an ordained Baptist minister who is director of international programs at Henderson State University in Arkadelphia, Ark., recently blogged.

Bill Shiell, pastor of First Baptist Church in Knoxville, Tenn., observed many Christians “are informed primarily by forwarded e-mails and relentlessly repetitive information, rather than the good news of Christ.”

“The phrase ‘do not be afraid’ is used 365 times in the Bible for a reason,” said Shiell, former pastor of Southland Baptist Church in San Angelo. “The faithful are often the most susceptible to fear.”

On the face of it, fear might appear a rational American—and Christian—response to the unsettling first decade of the 21st century. The worst economic slump since the Great Depression has left thousands without jobs and depleted retirement funds. American invulnerability was shattered by the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Immigration seems resistant to resolution and exacerbates both economic and security worries.

Passionate opposition to the proposed Islamic center near Ground Zero is just one of the most visible reactions to such concerns.

“Today’s world is reactive and irrational,” said Bob Dale, a Richmond, Va., church consultant and retired associate executive director of the Virginia Baptist Mission Board. “Threats seem more random, sinister and senseless than before. Our fears get amped up by news shouters, stock market jitters, political craziness and self-declared preachers.”

“Two wars, a failing economy, mortgage crisis, unemployment nightmares and the decline of all denominations in the United States have left us wondering: What are we to do?” said Derik Hamby, pastor of Randolph Memorial Baptist Church in Madison Heights, Va. “I’m not surprised when people are so afraid and rally around angry voices and express themselves in less than peaceful ways.”

But that response is at odds with the gospel, said George Mason, pastor of Wilshire Baptist Church in Dallas.

“Jesus told us we are the light of the world. For too many, that means that we exist to expose all that is evil and wrong so that people will be rightly afraid. But all through the Bible, any time an angel or an apostle shows up with a word from God, it begins with the command, ‘Fear not’ or, ‘Be not afraid.’ If we are to take that seriously, our faith shouldn’t succumb so quickly to fear and certainly shouldn’t inspire it,” Mason said.

“On the contrary, to be the light of the world should be more like living in such a way that those who dwell in the darkness of doubt and fear will see an alternative way forward based on faith that the future is safely in the hands of God.”

A variety of causes provoke fear, some church leaders agree. But the causes circle around a handful of themes.

Contrasting worldviews

Many Christians, equally drawing inspiration from Scripture, evaluate the world and its unpredictability in conflicting ways, Mason noted.

There are “those who begin with creation as good and think of everything unwinding out of control from sin’s entrance into the world,” he said. “And (there are) those who—like me—see creation itself as the first act of God ordering life out of chaos.”

The first group fears chaos is trumping an ordered creation and struggles to hold the rising turmoil at bay, Mason observed. The second group believes God has not yet finished the work of his new creation, and Christians are to live as signs of that ultimate victory.

“The first group tends to use fear as a warning that things will spiral out of control if we don’t exercise faith, which means fighting chaos by ordering the world in a way that reflects the values of the Garden of Eden,” he said.

“The second group sees fear as counterproductive to the good news of the kingdom of God that Jesus preached and called us to. If the latter is so, then we don’t have to fear, because we have nothing to worry about in the end. What did the resurrection prove, if not that the powers of chaos revealed in the cross are defeated once and for all?”

Confronting “the other”

The unknown—and the uncertainty it engenders—is a significant source of fear, said Chuck Warnock, pastor of Chatham (Va.) Baptist Church.

“Fear, whether it is based in fact or fantasy, divides people,” said Warnock. “Many of the fearful political reactions we see today characterize ‘others’ as those not like ‘us’—immigrants, Muslims and even our own president. Fear builds a wall between ‘us’ and ‘them,’ barricading itself behind our own need for security and stability.”

In contrast to the Cold War, today’s enemies are shadowy and hard to define, and consequently more frightening, Dale observed.

“Our poorly defined world pits us against many unknowns—‘thems.’ Those threats without a name leave us jumpy. Our raw nerves cause us to overreact. Anything—or anyone—unfamiliar is suspected and blamed. ‘Alien’ persons or beliefs are fair game for our anger.”

Scripture offers models for living without fear of “the other,” Hamby said.

“I realize there are those who find a message within our history and text that adds to the fear, but we should instead turn to the overwhelming tradition of peace found within those same sources,” he said. “We should not be afraid to encourage our people within and our community without. We need to get to know our faith neighbors and let our churches get to know their neighbors as well. It’s easy to fear those we do not know. It’s time for preachers and rabbis and imams to sit down and talk. It’s time for Sunday school classes to talk about healing and hope and not fear and failure.”

Loss of control

When chaos seems to gain the upper hand, the prospect of losing control over events provokes gut-wrenching fear, said Winn Collier, pastor of All Souls, a Baptist congregation in Charlottesville, Va.

“When we believe that our power, our authority, our place at the center of the table is threatened, then we launch into maintaining—at least our sense of—control,” Collier said.

“When those who have an opposing sexual ethic, political narrative or religious commitment seem to be gaining ground, our fangs come out.”

But God doesn’t ask Christians to retain cultural or political control, Collier said.

“In fact, Jesus, Paul and the early church were all marked by their refusal to play political games,” he said. “If we truly believe that the kingdom of God rules, then we have little angst when any of our human kingdoms begin to crumble. Conversely, if we have angst over crumbling human kingdoms, we might ask ourselves if we truly believe in the kingdom of God.

The real question, Collier insisted, isn’t how to handle fear. It’s how to believe and obey God.

“We live in an anxious world, and the only way I can see to speak against that anxiety is to declare that there is One who reigns over the world.”

Unsettling change

The toppling of the status quo, and especially cultural assumptions, is unnerving and fear-provoking, Warnock said.

“Fear is often based on preserving what is ‘ours’ by depriving someone else of the same rights and privileges,” he said. “In the United States, we see this playing out in the sons and daughters of immigrant ancestors who now are fearful that their lifestyle is threatened by a new generation of immigrants from Africa, Mexico and the Middle East.

“Christians must acknowledge that one of the hallmarks of Old Testament hospitality was welcoming the stranger,” he said. “Jesus answered the question, ‘Who is my neighbor?’ by giving us the story of the Good Samaritan, who was a member of a despised group during the first century. Jesus’ conversation with the woman at the well is another example of bridging the cultural and social divide, which many in Jesus’ day were afraid threatened their own lives.”

“We have nothing to protect,” Collier said. “The gospel is our only allegiance—and it doesn’t need our protection. And our dishonest or anger-laced response to others actually makes the gospel within us impotent.

“If we believe Jesus is King, then no other king, no other religion, no other political or historical reality, has any power of us,” he added. “We truly have nothing to fear. If we are living in fear, it means we do not truly believe God.”

Fears won’t be easily assuaged, Christian leaders agree, but attempts to quell them are critical.

“The only distinction the Bible makes in fear is ‘fear-of-the-Lord’—awe and respect of God that shapes our lives—and unhealthy fear,” Shiell said. “And the only antidote to unhealthy fear is love because ‘perfect love casts out fear.’”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—One group of Christians confidently proclaims that a plain reading of the Bible is a slam-dunk in their favor. The other side appeals to Scripture’s grand narrative toward freedom and inclusive love.

The argument boils over and ripples through the wider culture.

The search for middle ground proves futile. Denominations break apart.

Sound familiar? It could be 2010—or the mid-19th century.

As churches and denominations in the United States slog through divisive and long-running arguments over homosexuality, many Protestant progressives have sought to claim the historical and moral high ground by aligning their cause with abolitionism.

“I think almost everybody who makes the liberal argument about homosexuality makes the connection with abolition and slavery,” said Jeffrey Krehbiel, a Washington, D.C., pastor in the Presbyterian Church (USA) who supports gay rights.

Abolitionists, he said, “were the first to make the argument that the plain reading of the text maybe isn’t the most fruitful way to read the Bible.”

But while there are striking parallels between the slavery and homosexuality debates, historians caution that important differences emerge upon close examination.

In both eras, cultural trends forced Christians to question practices that long had been taken for granted, said Mark Noll, a professor of American religious history at the University of Notre Dame and author of The Civil War as a Theological Crisis.

Likewise, the Bible, and how to interpret it, has played a central role both then and now, Noll said.

In the 19th century, even some Northern abolitionists concluded the Bible condoned slavery.

Many, therefore, sought other sources of morality and methods of biblical interpretation; conservatives countered that such appeals undermined the power of the sacred text.

As conflict heated up, Noll writes in his book, slavery’s defenders increasingly saw “doubts about biblical defense of slavery as doubts about the authority of the Bible itself.”

As with slavery, few Christians are neutral on homosexuality.

“Like the situation in the 1830s and ’40s, once a certain kind of heat is generated, it becomes really hard to talk through these various kinds of debating strategies and implications,” Noll said.

Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists—and to some extent, Episcopalians—all split over slavery, mainly along the Mason-Dixon Line. Some reunited decades later. Baptists re-main apart to this day.

Likewise, in the last few years, a number of mainline Protestant congregations have parted with their denominations over homosexuality, although in far fewer numbers than during mid-19th century splits.

But the exodus may not be over. For example, conservative Presbyterians and United Methodists have threatened to leave en masse if their denominations decides to allow gay clergy and same-sex marriages.

“The parallels to the contemporary debate are fairly striking,” said Mark Valeri, a professor of church history at Union Presbyterian Seminary in Richmond, Va.

“You have a long-simmering moral dispute that heats up an ecclesiastical and political question, which results in a division.

“And the question is, when the division creates branches, how courts adjudicate those disputes.”

But there are key differences between the disputes over slavery and homosexuality, some historians say.

For instance, many conservatives say that it is not simply the gay issue that is driving them out the door, but a long liberal trend in mainline denominations that stretches back 30 years or more.

Second, Scripture shows only a grudging tolerance of slavery, a far cry from its ringing endorsement of heterosexual unions, argues Robert Gagnon, an associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.

“What kind of legitimate analogy can be made between the two? In my opinion, absolutely none. It’s just night and day,” he said.

Moreover, what seem like similar clashes over biblical interpretation can mask the role of self-interest in the debates.

Southern plantation owners—and the pastors they built churches for—had a huge financial stake in the slavery debate, said Charles Irons, an assistant professor of church history at North Carolina’s Elon University.

Today, it is not easy to see where the financial—or political—advantage lies in supporting or opposing gay rights, he said.

There’s one final—and significant— difference. Noll notes the theological crisis over slavery ultimately was decided politically by generals and armies.

Almost everyone agrees the homosexuality debate more likely will be settled by judges and lawmakers.

MURFREESBORO, Tenn. (ABP)—Mike Smith, pastor of First Baptist Church in Murfreesboro, Tenn., received an anonymous letter this summer asking him to warn his congregation that a proposed new mosque near the city was part of “a long-range plan to destroy Western civilization as we know it.”

Since he didn’t know who sent the letter, he decided to respond publicly in his personal blog.

“I’ve never had much use for anonymous letters, but this one got under my skin,” he said in part. “To tell the truth, the letter saddened me. It’s not every day I find so much fear and miscomprehension packed into one page of type!”

Fear and faith have divided residents of this rapidly growing community 30 miles southeast of Nashville—previously best-known for its role in Civil War history and as home to Middle Tennessee State University—since the Islamic Center of Murfreesboro bought roughly 15 acres of land last November to build a mega-church-style mosque facility just outside the city limits.

Permitted under a state law enacted in 2009 to make it easier to build churches without interference by local zoning boards, the action set off a wave of protests from citizens voicing concerns ranging from traffic and environmental impact to where a relatively small Muslim community expects to receive funding for a 53,000-square-foot complex that eventually would include a new mosque, multipurpose and educational facilities, gym and athletic fields.

Supporters and opponents of a proposed mosque in Murfreesboro, Tenn., face off. (PHOTOS/Bob Allen)

“To go from a small operation to a massive complex, it certainly gives one rise to question where the funds for such an operation occurred,” said Dusty Ray, the pastor of the independent Heartland Baptist Church. “From the numbers that they say that they have, it makes one wonder what the actual intent is, and because of the history involved and the thousands of years that we have to study on this, we do certainly, I think, have reason to be concerned.”

Since a similar controversy arose in New York City over construction of the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, Murfreesboro’s mosque controversy has received national attention. In mid-August, televangelist Pat Robertson weighed in on The 700 Club.

“I don’t think we should interfere with the free worship of God by any group, but ladies and gentlemen, this isn’t just religious,” Robertson said. “It just isn’t. You mark my word, if they start bringing thousands and thousands of Muslims into that relatively rural area, next thing you know, they are going to be taking over the city council. Then they are going to be having an ordinance that calls for public prayer five times a day. Then they are going to be having ordinances that there have to be facilities for foot-washing in all the public restrooms and all the airport facilities.

“Before long, they are going to demand, demand, demand, and little by little, the citizens of Murfreesboro or whatever little town it is are going to be cowed by these people—not to mention their ability to bribe folks. I don’t know whether anybody’s getting a payoff, but it’s entirely possible.”

Controversy over issues like building the Islamic Center bring out a range of opinions, many based on fear.

Another segment on the same program interviewed opponents of the Murfreesboro mosque.

“It does seem to be part of a larger strategy to build large mosques in rural areas and create Islamic communities, large Islamic communities, in rural areas for some larger purpose,” said Rebecca Bynum, publisher for New English Review and formerly news editor and board member of Jihad Watch.

Laurie Cardoza Moore, president of the pro-Israel group Proclaiming Justice to the Nations, offered an explanation of what makes Murfreesboro attractive to Muslims.

“We have the Bible book publishers,” she said. “You have Christian book publishers. You have Christian music headquartered here. So, this is where the gospel message goes out.”

Later Moore was interviewed on Comedy Central’s Daily Show.

“This has nothing to do with religion,” she said of the mosque controversy. “It’s about stopping the advancement of radical Islam in the United States of America.”

Muslims “believe that Jews and the Christians are the infidels and they are, according to the Quranic teachings, supposed to be killed,” she said.

Moore went on to claim that “Islam is a political system of global domination,” that 30 percent of Muslims are terrorists and there are already 35 training camps in America.

“We know we’ve got a huge terrorist network here in Tennessee,” she said. “The Nashville Islamic center appears to be the mother ship.”

While heated, most of the debate so far has been civil, but there have been acts of violence.

In January, someone vandalized a sign at the future mosque site by spray painting it with “Not Welcome.” The Islamic Center of Murfreesboro labeled it an “effort to gain publicity and sway public opinion towards stereotyping views against Muslims.”

A second sign vandalism occurred in June, when someone slashed the sign reading “Future Site of Islamic Center of Murfreesboro” in two.

Early Aug. 28, four pieces of heavy construction equipment on the site were doused with accelerant and set ablaze. Federal officials are investigating the suspicious fire as a possible hate crime.

“It’s still a little mind-boggling,” Camie Ayash, a stay-at-home mom and the mosque’s spokesperson, told Time magazine. “It seems like the community is very accepting of us as individuals; when I take my kids to school, I don’t run into any prejudice because I cover my hair, but the concept of Islam overall makes people nervous because of 9/11.”

Smith, the pastor of First Baptist Church, reminded his congregation their Muslim neighbors are U.S. citizens entitled to freedom of religion, and Christians should treat all people, including those of other faith traditions, with respect.

“Our nation is at war with terrorists, wherever they may be found. We are not at war with a religion,” Smith wrote.

“Christianity is not at war with any other religion. Instead, we are called to minister to others through prayer, worship, teaching and good works. We should trust God with the world and seek only to be faithful in the tasks God has given us.”

RICHMOND, Va.—Peaceful living in a fear-provoking environment is challenging, even—maybe especially—for Christians. The unpredictable 21st century isn’t likely to settle down any time soon.

Church leaders suggested several ways Christians can confront fear.

Evaluate information wisely

Verify statements such as mass-distributed e-mails and confront the senders if they aren’t true, said Derik Hamby, pastor of Randolph Memorial Baptist Church in Madison Heights, Va.

“False e-mails are forwarded with no fact checking. When you receive one, don’t just delete it. Look up the story, and if it is false, share in love that it is. When unkind comments are made, look for teachable moments to address the group targeted,” Hamby said.

“Take a sabbath from technology,” said Bill Shiell, pastor of First Baptist Church in Knoxville, Tenn. “Watching the Weather Channel all day only makes you afraid of storms. Not every ‘breaking news’ story is newsworthy. Read Snopes.com (a fact-checking website) before forwarding e-mails.”

Counter the culture

“Start a conspiracy of kindness,” Shiell said. “For every rumor you hear about a politician, public figure, minister or church member, do something kind for someone else secretively. Spread rumors about how great someone is.”

Maintain spiritual disciplines

“The tried and true spiritual practices of prayer, worship, Bible reading, hymn singing and giving away our possessions in tithes and offerings remind us that our faith is good news after all,” said George Mason, pastor of Wilshire Baptist Church in Dallas. “We will only experience freedom from fear when we are exercising our faith in the face of it. We can’t say we believe and then pull back our hearts and gifts in acts of self-preservation.”

Shiell encouraged increased church involvement. “One of the greatest witnesses and testimonies we demonstrate to the world is by going to church, giving generously and living obediently,” he said. “Our behavior counteracts all fears.”

Be transparent

Being open about fears can reduce their power, Hamby said.

“Talk about specific fears in open forums where people can talk about them,” he said. “Encourage folks to name ‘the elephant in the room’ and why they are afraid. … Name the fear. Put it out there. Make it a visible prayer concern.”

When changes in congregations provoke fear, take time to address it, Shiell suggested.

“Slow down those votes for change,” he said. “Most churches’ vote for change could be addressed with more time. Because people are living in fear, they get more upset about unnecessary things, especially at church. Allow more time for people to process things before votes.”

Confront the fear

Find a group that church members fear—such as another religion or ethnicity—and plan an activity with them, said Chuck Warnock, pastor of Chatham (Va.) Baptist Church.

“Carefully planned visits to local mosques or cultural centers can help others learn customs and practices that in the end are not so foreign from our own,” said Warnock. “Befriending Hispanic agricultural workers or offering English-as-a-Second-Language classes at church are ways to help, as well as to get to know those whom we fear.”

Shiell agreed, adding: “Following Jesus’ model with the woman at the well or with Zaccheus the tax collector, churches can build a relationship with someone their community is afraid of. Volunteer at a public school, and usually you can find an opportunity to learn more about the poor, minorities, immigrants, homosexuals, Muslims, sinners and saints.”

Speak out

Sometimes bolder measures are called for, Warnock said.

“Christians must lend their voices to rea-sonable conversations about differences in a pluralistic society because that is the right and ethical thing to do,” he said. “Love is a powerful force that can bridge great cultural divides, heal ancient wounds and bind people together with hope for the future.”

Be patient

“We need to show pity to people who are afraid,” Shiell said. “Sin creates unhealthy fear, and we are dealing with so many who do not know any other way to react. Patience and pity cause us to love the fear-monger. Most people spreading conspiracy theories are just crying out for attention and something to hold onto that gives them significance. You can replace all that with a listening ear.”

Trust God

“Remember that God has not been sur- prised by one world or local event yet,” said Shiell. “I learned that from my ninth grade Sunday school teacher.”

WASHINGTON (RNS)—When are religious views on homosexuality an issue of religious and academic freedom, and when are they discrimination? That’s a question raised by counselors and educators across the country.

Recently, a federal judge ruled against Jennifer Keeton, a student at Augusta State University who was ordered to either undergo “diversity sensitivity” training after she expressed conservative Christian views on the issue of homosexuality or leave the school’s counseling program. Her attorneys announced they are appealing the case.

In March, a federal judge supported the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in its dismissal of a Georgia counselor who ended a session with a lesbian client and referred her to another counselor because of her religious views.

And in Maine last year, a school counselor received complaints for appearing in a TV ad that opposed the state’s gay-marriage law.

As homosexuality becomes more acceptable in American society, some Christian counselors say they are being persecuted for their views as the pendulum, in their eyes, swings too far toward political correctness.

Professional groups, meanwhile, say counselors are duty-bound to be able to handle any number of cases, including those that present situations that might conflict with the counselor’s personal religious beliefs.

Julea Ward, a conservative Christian student at Eastern Michigan University, was a few credits away from finishing her master’s degree in counseling in 2009 when she was assigned a student who previously had been counseled about a homosexual relationship.

“She went to her supervisor and said, ‘I may not be the best person for this particular client,’” said Jeremy Tedesco, Ward’s attorney, who has advised his client not to speak publicly about the case.

Ward later was brought up on disciplinary charges and eventually was dismissed from Eastern Michigan for violating the American Counseling Association’s Code of Ethics and demonstrating an unwillingness to change her behavior.

On July 26, a federal judge upheld the school’s dismissal of Ward.

Her case will be appealed, said Tedesco, an attorney with the conservative legal firm Alliance Defense Fund, which has taken up at least four similar cases in the last year alone.

Tedesco thinks the appeal could take the case all the way to the Supreme Court, bringing the issue to further prominence.

“The judge here definitely got it wrong, in our opinion,” he said. “In my view, we’re going to see a trend of more universities doing this.”

Ward’s case and other similar ones have left some professionals wondering whether Christian views opposing homosexuality are compatible with the counseling profession and whether such views are protected under the auspices of religious freedom.

The question of how much students and professors should be allowed to express religious views that frown on homosexual behavior remains unresolved, but cases like Ward’s and others seem to indicate little tolerance for personal religious views within academia.

Students in psychology and counseling programs are subject to the American Counseling Association Code of Ethics instead of university rules that may allow greater room for academic freedom.

Ward’s legal team says the professional codes are unconstitutional and should not be a basis for discipline, especially at public universities.

“It’s a big difference between teaching a code of ethics and enforcing them,” said Tedesco. “Those kind of policies can’t withstand constitutional scrutiny.”

University administrators disagree, saying they have to abide by professional standards if they want their students’ degrees to be taken seriously in the workforce.

“We have to go through accreditation standards,” said Walter Kraft, Eastern Michigan’s vice president for communications. “We have to honor whatever guidelines might exist.”

Psychology and counseling professionals agree it sometimes is ap-propriate for them to deny their services, as Ward did—when there is a conflict of interest, a close relationship, or unchangeable bias. In practice, they say counselors and psychologists need to be as open-minded as possible, given the myriad of personalities they encounter.

DURHAM, N.C. (ABP) —Many clergy are caring for others but not taking adequate care of themselves, a recent study by Duke University revealed.

A survey of United Methodist ministers in North Carolina found them significantly more obese than their socio-economic peers in the general population. Ministers also suffered higher rates for chronic diseases like high blood pressure, asthma and diabetes.

The lead author of the study, Rae Jean Proeschold-Bell of the Duke University Center for Health Policy, said mortality rates for clergy are lower than their nonclergy peers due to lower rates of sexually transmitted disease, accidents and suicide.

That creates a false impression that the restraint clergy exercise in other areas of their lives will carry over into things like diet and exercise, she observed.

Proeschold-Bell described “an urgent need” for health interventions in the United Methodist Church and possibly among other clergy to curb obesity and chronic disease.

“Churches and other religious institutions have often been viewed as structures in which to enact health interventions,” she wrote. “However, this study’s findings indicate that it is critical to improve the health of clergy themselves.”

Clergy are not immune from depression and anxiety, Proeschold-Bell said.

Because congregants put them on a pedestal and assume they have strong enough spiritual resources to handle it, many ministers are reluctant to admit feeling strain. That only adds to feelings of stress and isolation, she said.

Clergy-related issues participants indicated as having the greatest impact on their health included the ability to set boundaries, the perception that the minister is on call 24 hours a day, church health, itinerancy and financial strain.

Participants reported feeling overwhelmed by pastoral needs from congregants and community members and struggling to set boundaries in order to protect their time for self-care practices like exercise and family time.

Barriers to protecting their personal time included the ministers’ “own servant orientation” and expectations by the congregation that they be constantly available. Several noted the expectation of constant availability made it particularly difficult to take vacations.

Other barriers included the tendency of pastors “to put everyone else’s needs before their own and to have unrealistically high expectations for themselves.”

Participants also said unhealthy church dynamics had a large effect on their health.

Several common church situations—such as a small number of congregants opposing even small changes suggested by the pastor, feuding cliques of church members that polarize issues along group lines and one or more congregants who use intimidation or abusive tactics to oppose the pastor—all had significant impact on clergy stress.

One strength of the study, the first of its kind to compare the health of ministers with people of similar demographics in the general population, was the sample, researchers said.

All currently serving United Methodist clergy in North Carolina were offered participation, and 95 percent completed the survey.

Several participants discussed the importance of taking a Sabbath or spiritual retreat. Some mentioned “religious coping” with stress, such as one minister who reported realizing he was working too hard and “just putting my trust in the Lord and really believing that it’s his ministry, not mine.”

One “interesting but not surprising” finding was that participants repeatedly included spiritual well-being in their definition of good health.

Researchers said peer support is one way for ministers to learn ways of handling the unique demands and stresses of their profession. It is more likely to be effective if it occurs in a way that allows pastors to make themselves vulnerable to each other and ensures confidentiality, especially with pastors who hope to move later to a larger church.

WASHINGTON (RNS)—Two new books challenge Christians to restore their faith to its true mission and forsake a consumerist mentality some churches adapt in a bid to meet members’ needs.

“Churches can better shape the faithful by recovering a sense that the life of faith is supposed to be a challenging experience,” said veteran journalist G. Jeffrey MacDonald. “I think that this may start with a new consumer ethic for this new religious marketplace.”

Jeffrey MacDonald takes on the consumerist gospel in his recent book, Thieves in the Temple.

Stephen Reese challenges Christians to explore what is required for an active and grounded faith.

MacDonald, an ordained clergyman and Religion News Service correspondent, takes on the consumerist gospel in his recent book, Thieves in the Temple: The Christian Church and the Selling of the American Soul. He criticizes the easy gospel doled out by some congregations, arguing that faith loses its flavor when watered down.

MacDonald says churches should remember the words and lives of people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Luther King Jr., two 20th century martyrs who died when their public Christian activism challenged the status quo.

“American history would have been completely different if Martin Luther King had stayed inside his comfort zone,” he said. “He put himself at ultimate risk and paid the ultimate price.”

University of Texas journalism professor Stephen Reese approaches the challenge from a more personal perspective but reaches similar conclusions in his new book, Hope for the Thinking Christian.

Reese, who’s active in Austin’s Oak Hill United Methodist Church and is the author of several academic books, pushes readers to explore what’s required for modern believers to discover an active, grounded faith.

“I wanted to emphasize the everyday-life aspects in the book,” Reese said. “I wanted to get beyond the notion that you have to have a serious personal life crash in order to have a testimony. … I think we have all faced the spiritual drama of everyday life. What it means to be a father, a husband, a teacher, a friend—multiple situations.”

The rapid pace of modern life, combined with people’s constant connection to technology, limits essential time to withdraw and be still, Reese said.

“The difference between work and home is no longer there,” he said. “We’re so distracted in our world with demands on our time. There are difficulties in pulling away from work to have some kind of Sabbath moment. That’s probably more challenging than ever before.”

Since the book’s publication, Reese often finds himself speaking and reflecting on the “traditional division between the intellect and the life of the heart.” He sees a lingering uneasiness within academia over such a conversation, despite “more acceptance now of faith in the public square.”

Both the Reese book and MacDonald’s highlight the world’s need for hope, and lay the responsibility for developing an intentional spirituality—ingrained in both Christian and congregation—at the feet of the faithful.

MacDonald worries that churches, pressed to please a fickle clientele, are failing their principle mission to edify, noting the nation’s greatest social movements—from 19th century abolitionists to 20th century women’s liberationists—achieved their goals with roots in the church.

“What we’re talking about here is whether churches in America will be capable of producing a pro-phetic voice in the present or in the future,” he said. “The muscles that the church has at its disposal to shape people who know the heart of God and can bear witness in a prophetic way … are being eviscerated by consumerism.”

NASHVILLE, Tenn.—For more than 30 years, Amy Grant has been taking listeners on a musical journey filled with opportunities to share the gospel at her concerts.

Along the way, Grant became one of the first contemporary Christian musicians to cross over into mainstream radio and paved the way for other Christian recording artists.

Despite the accolades and achievements, Grant remains committed to sharing the gospel message through songs. Her albums have displayed a variety of musical styles, including pop songs, contemporary worship and traditional hymns. 

Her latest album, Somewhere Down the Road, chronicles songs about life’s most heart-wrenching moments, as well as the unexpected joys.

“I am personally moved by the concept of our journey through life,” Grant said. “Because of all the years that have come before, I find myself in a unique and somewhat rare position to be able to sing about that journey. I think that capturing someone’s hopes or dreams in a song is a pretty powerful experience, and I love to see how music changes people.

“Probably the comment that I get most from people is that they feel some sort of companionship when they listen to my music. People want to know that they are not alone in this world. So many times, music is our way of being found—whether it’s church hymns or contemporary songs.” 

At her concerts, Grant hopes the songs break down barriers and connect people to Christ.

“When a song is used to connect people to Christ, it’s the most powerful form of musical expression,” Grant said. “Music is a powerful tool and can often reach people in a different way than spoken words. Music has a way of disarming people and speaks to them in a way that refreshes them and puts them at ease.

“I hope people walk away from my concerts with a sense of being connected to the message of the gospel. The most important message that I want to share with people is about what matters most in life and to help them realize their need for Jesus.”

Happiness found in church, not shopping mall. Protestant and Catholic women in the United States have grown unhappier since stores have stayed open on Sundays, according to a study by economists from Israel’s Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and Chicago’s DePaul University. The study found the repeal of “blue law” restrictions on Sunday shopping has corresponded with lower church attendance for white women. Meanwhile, the probability of women becoming unhappy increased by 17 percent. The study concludes that “an important part of the decline in women’s happiness during the last three decades can be explained by decline in religious participation,” said Danny Cohen-Zada, an economics scholar at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. The researchers analyzed churchgoing habits of women from the National Opinion Research Center’s General Social Survey, which has collected information about American characteristics and attitudes from 1972 to 2008. They also looked at data from states that have repealed “blue laws” restricting Sunday commerce—Indiana, Minnesota, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Vermont—compared to others with no change.

Western Wall partition may offer one-way viewing. Jewish authorities at Jerusalem’s Western Wall hope to replace the existing opaque partition that separates the men’s and women’s prayer areas with one that will enable female worshippers to see into the men’s section but not vice-versa. The move follows years of complaints by female worshippers who have been unable to see into the men’s section, even during family bar mitzvahs. Currently, female relatives who want to see a bar mitzvah from the women’s section must stand on plastic chairs and peer over the top of the tall barrier, called a mechitza. Mechitzas exist in all Orthodox synagogues because Jewish law prohibits men and women from praying together, and it prohibits men from seeing women during prayer.

World Vision wins employment dispute. World Vision, the Christian humanitarian organization, can fire employees who disagree with its theological tenets, a federal appeals court ruled. In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said World Vision is a religious corporation and therefore exempt from a federal law that bars faith-based discrimination. Three employees, including two who had worked at World Vision 10 years, were fired in 2006 because they did not believe in the divinity of Jesus or the doctrine of the Trinity. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars religious discrimination, but it carves out an exemption for companies engaged in a religious purpose, the court ruled.