Many churches around the globe are celebrating the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s radical upheaval of medieval Catholicism. What he set in motion on Oct. 31, 1517, as he posted his 95 Theses on the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, challenging the religious authorities to a debate, affects us still. We are still trying to catch up with Luther in many areas; and in other areas, we rightly distance ourselves from his writings, especially his perspectives on Jews.

What was Luther so upset about that he nailed the placard of grievances to the door, which served as the public bulletin board of that little village? Let’s look back at the Catholicism that nurtured him to see what was going on.

Read the full article at Baptist News Global.

Molly T. Marshall is president and professor of theology and spiritual formation at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Shawnee, Kan.

Why do people distrust atheists?

A recent study we conducted, led by psychologist Will Gervais, found widespread and extreme moral prejudice against atheists around the world. Across all continents, people assumed that those who committed immoral acts, even extreme ones such as serial murder, were more likely to be atheists.

Although this was the first demonstration of such bias at a global scale, its existence is hardly surprising.

Survey data show that Americans are less trusting of atheists than of any other social group. For most politicians, going to church is often the best way to garner votes, and coming out as an unbeliever could well be political suicide. After all, there are no open atheists in the U.S. Congress. The only known religiously unaffiliated representative describes herself as “none,” but still denies being an atheist.

So, where does such extreme prejudice come from? And what is the actual evidence on the relationship between religion and morality?

How does religion relate to morality?

It is true that the world’s major religions are concerned with moral behavior. Many, therefore, might assume that religious commitment is a sign of virtue, or even that morality cannot exist without religion.

Both of these assumptions, however, are problematic.

These examples also reveal that religious morality can and does change with the ebb and flow of the surrounding culture. In recent years, several Anglican churches have revised their moral views to allow contraception, the ordination of women and the blessing of same-sex unions.

Discrepancy between beliefs and behavior

In any case, religiosity is only loosely related to theology. That is, the beliefs and behaviors of religious people are not always in accordance with official religious doctrines. Instead, popular religiosity tends to be much more practical and intuitive. This is what religious studies scholars call “theological incorrectness.”

For this reason, sociologist Mark Chaves called the idea that people behave in accordance with religious beliefs and commandments the “religious congruence fallacy.”

This discrepancy among beliefs, attitudes and behaviors is a much broader phenomenon. After all, communism is an egalitarian ideology, but communists do not behave any less selfishly.

So, what is the actual evidence on the relationship between religion and morality?

Do people practice what they preach?

Social scientific research on the topic offers some intriguing results.

When researchers ask people to report on their own behaviors and attitudes, religious individuals claim to be more altruistic, compassionate, honest, civic and charitable than nonreligious ones. Even among twins, more religious siblings describe themselves are being more generous.

But when we look at actual behavior, these differences are nowhere to be found.

Researchers have now looked at multiple aspects of moral conduct, from charitable giving and cheating in exams to helping strangers in need and cooperating with anonymous others.

In a classical experiment known as the “Good Samaritan Study,” researchers monitored who would stop to help an injured person lying in an alley. They found that religiosity played no role in helping behavior, even when participants were on their way to deliver a talk on the parable of the good Samaritan.

This finding has now been confirmed in numerous laboratory and field studies. Overall, the results are clear: No matter how we define morality, religious people do not behave more morally than atheists, although they often say (and likely believe) that they do.

When and where religion has an impact

On the other hand, religious reminders do have a documented effect on moral behavior.

Studies conducted among American Christians, for example, have found that participants donated more money to charity and even watched less porn on Sundays. However, they compensated on both accounts during the rest of the week. As a result, there were no differences between religious and nonreligious participants on average.

Numerous other studies have yielded similar results. In my own work, I found that people became more generous and cooperative when they found themselves in a place of worship.

Interestingly, one’s degree of religiosity does not seem to have a major effect in these experiments. In other words, the positive effects of religion depend on the situation, not the disposition.

Religion and rule of law

Not all beliefs are created equal, though. A recent cross-cultural study showed that those who see their gods as moralizing and punishing are more impartial and cheat less in economic transactions. In other words, if people believe that their gods always know what they are up to and are willing to punish transgressors, they will tend to behave better, and expect that others will too.

Such a belief in an external source of justice, however, is not unique to religion. Trust in the rule of law, in the form of an efficient state, a fair judicial system or a reliable police force, is also a predictor of moral behavior.

And indeed, when the rule of law is strong, religious belief declines, and so does distrust against atheists.

The co-evolution of God and society

Scientific evidence suggests that humans – and even our primate cousins – have innate moral predispositions, which are often expressed in religious philosophies. That is, religion is a reflection rather than the cause of these predispositions.

But the reason religion has been so successful in the course of human history is precisely its ability to capitalize on those moral intuitions.

According to psychologist Ara Norenzayan, belief in morally invested gods developed as a solution to the problem of large-scale cooperation.

Early societies were small enough that their members could rely on people’s reputations to decide whom to associate with. But once our ancestors turned to permanent settlements and group size increased, everyday interactions were increasingly taking place between strangers. How were people to know whom to trust?

Religion provided an answer by introducing beliefs about all-knowing, all-powerful gods who punish moral transgressions. As human societies grew larger, so did the occurrence of such beliefs. And in the absence of efficient secular institutions, the fear of God was crucial for establishing and maintaining social order.

In those societies, a sincere belief in a punishing supernatural watcher was the best guarantee of moral behavior, providing a public signal of compliance with social norms.

Today we have other ways of policing morality, but this evolutionary heritage is still with us. Although statistics show that atheists commit fewer crimes than average, the widespread prejudice against them, as highlighted by our study, reflects intuitions that have been forged through centuries and might be hard to overcome.

Dimitris Xygalatas is assistant professor in anthropology at the University of Connecticut. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

(RNS) — Jim has happily attended his church for more than six months. But he decided that this past Sunday would be his last. Why? Because he attended a membership class and discovered the church’s position on homosexuality. Jim feels this is an issue over which he cannot compromise, so he has no choice except to leave the church he once loved.

The story of this fictitious man has increasingly played out in real life, and believers on both sides of the issues have been harmed by it. Imagine a gay man and his husband are welcomed into a local church and even allowed to volunteer. Months later, however, the couple discover that the church does not recognize or support their union. The couple is prohibited from joining the church and their young children cannot be baptized. Or envision a conservative family walks into a contemporary church they think their children will like. But later they discover that the pastor has performed a same-sex wedding, which conflicts with their deeply held convictions and biblical interpretations.

I’ve heard countless stories like these from both conservative and progressive Christian friends. But thanks to a new website, these stories may become a relic of the past. Today, a new organization, Church Clarity, launched an online database that will score churches’ positions on the issue and rate each congregation as either “affirming” or “non-affirming.”

The organization claims to be neutral on the issue, but visitors will be excused from assuming otherwise based on the organization’s leadership. Two of CC’s co-founders — Tim Schraeder, who identifies as gay, and Sarah Ngu, who identifies as queer — are clearly more progressive on the issue. The third, George Mekhail, identifies as straight but serves at the LGBT-affirming Riverside Church in Manhattan. Mekhail formerly served as a pastor at EastLake Church in Seattle, an evangelical megachurch that famously created controversy when Time magazine reported it had quietly become LGBT-affirming. Julie Rodgers, a lesbian writer living in Washington, D.C., is also listed as an adviser to the organization.

Even still, CC’s mission is one that many conservative Christians should embrace. Many evangelicals have decried the theological ambiguity of some churches and have called for greater clarity on the matter.

Last year, Eugene Peterson told me in an interview that he had evolved on LGBT issues and would perform a same-sex wedding, before retracting the statement a day later. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, responded that the ordeal underscored the need for every leader and congregation to “have your answer ready.” He wrote:

Every pastor, every Christian leader, every author  — even every believer — will have to answer the question. The question cannot simply be about same-sex marriage. The question is about whether or not the believer is willing to declare and defend God’s revealed plan for human sexuality and gender as clearly revealed in the Bible…. Evasive, wandering, and inconclusive answers will be seen for what they are. Those who have fled for security to the house of evasion must know that the structure has crumbled. It always does.

If one can set aside CC’s leadership team for a moment, it’s obvious that the organization shares a common goal with conservative Christians like Mohler: to pressure pastors and churches with unclear positions on homosexuality to unambiguously state their views.

CC’s Schraeder told me via email that they have “scored” 24 churches so far, and another 100 churches have been submitted via the crowdsource form on the website. These will take time to process and verify before they are listed on the website, Schraeder said.

The organization’s initial efforts to promote their campaign have already created a firestorm on social media, but the organization’s leaders tell me there is more to come. They will now begin posting quote memes from well-known Christian leaders and pastors who have spoken about the need for clarity but have yet to disclose their positions on this matter.

One quote, from LifeChurch.tv’s Craig Groeschel, for example, says, “You are only as strong as you are honest.” LifeChurch.tv has been classified as “Unclear: Non-Affirming.” A selection of forthcoming memes has been inserted below this article.

When I asked Mekhail whether the organization was trying to use these conservative pastors’ own words against them, he said: “We aren’t. We actually agree with their quotes. We also don’t think that there is any logical reason to be ‘against’ clarity. Clarity is reasonable.”

But the organization curiously does not list any liberal congregations that are classified as unclear. In fact, the current website is stacked mostly with evangelical megachurches led by celebrity pastors. Mekhail says that this isn’t intentional, but rather that megachurches are both the most visible and tend to get away with ambiguity.

In a time when the church is bitterly divided over sexual ethics and LGBT issues, it is, well, unclear, whether Church Clarity’s effort will create more division or less. While we certainly don’t want the “Jims” of the world to feel duped by their local congregation, we don’t want to further polarize the Christian community on an issue that is riddled with nuance. If Church Clarity has its way, the messy middle on this issue will shrink or be eliminated.

Regardless, you can expect that many pastors will find themselves on the hot seat in the coming days thanks to Church Clarity’s efforts. And this is exactly what CC’s leaders hope will happen.

“As any organizer knows, pressure becomes a necessary option when those in power refuse to engage in conversation with you,” Ngu says. “We do want to have conversations with leaders and help them become more clear, but the truth is that for some leaders, unless they feel the pressure, they aren’t going to care.”

Jonathan Merritt is senior columnist for Religion News Service and a contributing writer for The Atlantic. He has published more than 2500 articles in outlets like USA Today, The Week, Buzzfeed and National Journal. Jonathan is author of “Jesus is Better Than You Imagined” and “A Faith of Our Own: Following Jesus Beyond the Culture Wars.” He resides in Brooklyn, NY.  Religion News Service published his column. RNS columns are direct-published opinion pieces. They are not always edited and reflect the views only of the author.

(RNS) — Two theology professors — the first Catholic, the second Protestant — trade perspectives on the heart of the divide between them.

Matthew Levering, a Catholic perspective

In my book “Was the Reformation a Mistake?: Why Catholic Doctrine Is Not Unbiblical,” I aim to show that even if one disagrees with judgments made in the course of Catholic doctrinal development, the Catholic positions on nine disputed doctrines (Scripture, Mary, the Eucharist, the Seven Sacraments, monasticism, justification and merit, purgatory, saints and papacy) should not be rejected as unbiblical or as lacking in biblical grounding — at least given the Catholic view of biblically warranted modes of biblical reasoning.

Before proceeding, let me make some additional observations about whether the Reformation was a “mistake,” as my book’s title asks in light of the Reformation’s 500th anniversary.

I hold that the Reformers made mistakes, but that they chose to be reformers was not a mistake. There had to be a Reformation, and it is good that the Reformation shook up a status quo in Rome and elsewhere that was unacceptable and untenable. In this sense, the Protestant Reformation cannot be dismissed as a mere “mistake,” even if in my view it mistakenly deemed some Catholic doctrines to be unbiblical and church-dividing.

Protestants and Catholics agree that Scripture is God’s authoritative Word. The disputed question then is how God’s scriptural Word is handed on and interpreted. Having discovered to their dismay that (in their view) several of the Catholic Church’s doctrinal teachings were not in fact scripturally grounded, Luther and the other Reformers sought to renew the church on better doctrinal foundations.

I propose that Scripture teaches that the church is the faithful interpreter of Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If this is so, then it follows that if the church failed to be able to faithfully determine matters of doctrinal truth for the whole people of God in each generation and across generations, Scripture itself would fail in its truth.

God does not intend for Scripture to function without the ability of the church’s leaders to determine authoritatively what Scripture means on a disputed point. Although some of the leaders of the church may fall into error, the Holy Spirit ensures that the church’s leadership serves all members of the church by enabling us to know true doctrine and to obey the Word of God.

Paul’s second letter to Timothy describes just such a role for the church’s leaders, who are to “preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching” (2 Timothy 4:2).

Indeed, 2 Timothy warns of a coming time when each member of the church will want to determine for himself or herself what Scripture means: “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” (2 Timothy 4:3-4).

When people simply follow “their own likings,” the necessary stance of self-effacing obedience to God’s Word goes missing. Such a situation does not measure up to the scriptural depiction of authoritative leaders such as Peter, Paul and Timothy (as well as Moses, Joshua and Josiah), who are commissioned by God to serve God’s people.

The church has authoritative leaders appointed by Christ, and their interpretations are binding for the whole people of God under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This does not mean that the church’s authoritative leaders make no errors, since they obviously do so. It means solely that they are preserved, in their solemn determinations of binding doctrine, from an error that would negate the church’s mediation of the true gospel to each generation and that would negate the church’s standing as “the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

Under the Spirit’s guidance, the church as led by the apostles and by those whom they appointed as successors (down to the present day) feeds the flock of Jesus Christ with the true doctrine of the Word of God rather than with “godless and silly myths” or the “doctrines of demons.” Certainly, the successors of the apostles do not have the unique status of the apostles, since the latter received the Word of God directly from Christ. As Paul says, it is quite evident that there will be bad leaders, poorly disposed to Christ, even among the successors of the apostles.

Everyone can agree that the church needs leaders and that these leaders will exercise teaching authority. The question is whether and when the teaching of these leaders is normative, that is to say, is sustained in truth by the Holy Spirit in order to enable believers over the centuries to receive “sound teaching” about the Word of God.

The Catholic Church holds that due to the working of the Holy Spirit rather than to human power, the successors of the apostles are able truthfully to do what the apostles and elders meeting at Jerusalem did, with the result that the church over the centuries does not fail in the truthfulness of its mediation of the gospel.

Matthew Levering is the Perry Family Foundation professor of theology at Mundelein Seminary, University of St. Mary of the Lake, in Mundelein, Ill.

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, a Protestant perspective

Probably more has happened in the last 50 years to reshape the Roman Catholic/Protestant division than in the entire 450 years that preceded it. For example, since Vatican II there has been a new openness in Rome to non-Catholics and a new concern for biblical interpretation.

If the Reformation was primarily about being biblical (i.e., sola scriptura), does Levering’s claim that Catholic doctrine is not unbiblical finally put to rest the issue that prompted Luther’s protest? Is the Reformation over, or are we simply over the Reformation and its divisive concern for establishing doctrines biblically?

In any case, the pertinent question is not simply historical (“Was the Reformation a mistake?”) but contemporary (Is reformation ongoing and still necessary?).

I will concentrate on Levering’s underlying assumptions and overall approach, namely, his theological method — the way he appeals to Scripture, church and church tradition to develop and defend doctrinal arguments. The real issue is not whether Roman Catholics use the Bible to do theology (they do) or accord it authority (they do), but rather whether they accord Scripture supreme authority in its own interpretation (they don’t).

The real dispute pertains to the status and interpretation of the Bible in the church. I agree with Levering’s claim that “Scripture teaches that the church is the faithful interpreter of Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit,” although we disagree about the referent of “church,” the manner of the Spirit’s guidance (i.e., does the Spirit primarily guide the bishops or, more narrowly, the magisterium or, more broadly, the whole company of the faithful?), and about the consistency of the church’s faithfulness.

Levering suggests that Protestants “think about” Scripture apart from a liturgically inflected and communal process, as if the paradigm Protestant interpreter was an individual at home in his or her study. The Bible cannot be isolated from the community in which it lives and moves and has its being, the church.

However, it is one thing to say that the Bible makes sense in the context of the believing community, quite another to say that the community gives the Bible its sense, and something else again to insist that the Bible makes sense only in communities that are in communion with the Church of Rome. I affirm the first option, not the second or third.

Levering is entirely correct to call attention to the importance of reading Scripture in the context of the believing and worshipping community of believers. Here too, however, everything depends on how we describe the church’s interpretive activity. For example, is it more appropriate to describe the church as a people of the book (i.e., Luther’s “creature of the Word”) or Scripture as the book of the people (i.e., creature of the church)? Will the real authorizing agency please stand up?

For Levering, “tradition” is itself the mode of biblical reasoning. For Protestants, the crucial question is whether Scripture can trump the “tradition” of its ecclesial interpretation (spoiler alert: Yes, it can!).

The real issue when Protestants and Catholics come to differing biblical interpretations is the locus of authority. For Catholics, the true meaning of Scripture is a joint product of the biblical text and the church’s developing tradition of reading it. For Protestants, the church’s say-so does not make it so. Beneath the surface skirmishes over scriptural interpretation lies the deeper disagreement over the lordship of Christ and the place of the church in the pattern of interpretive authority.

I want to suggest that the real conflict between Protestants and Roman Catholics is not between Scripture and tradition but between catholicism and one particular tradition (Romanism). What disagreements I may have with Levering have less to do with his drawing on catholic tradition, much less biblical theology, than they do with the way his underlying Romanism — by which I mean the pattern of theological authority that gives pride of interpretive place to the Roman magisterium — exaggerates the nature and function of the institutional church.

I argue that Catholic doctrine falls short of being biblical in the way that most mattered to the Reformers, namely, by according supreme authority to the Spirit speaking in the Scriptures even in matters of interpretation. Here I stand, reluctantly obliged to judge the Roman mode of biblical reasoning an example of not sola but sorta scriptura.

Kevin J. Vanhoozer is research professor of systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Ill.

Adapted from “Was the Reformation a Mistake?” by Matthew Levering with a Response by Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Copyright © 2017 by Matthew Levering and Kevin J. Vanhoozer. Used by permission of Zondervan. The views expressed in these opinion pieces do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.

(RNS) President Trump’s hostile rhetoric against North Korea is being met by ominous threats against the United States from that country’s leader, Kim Jong Un, and his regime.

That much is clear from reporting by Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times, who found Kim’s threats echoed by both military and Foreign Ministry officials.

The tone of my own encounters with North Koreans was quite different when I visited there six years ago.

I went with Dyon Chang, the founder-owner of the Forever 21 clothing chain and a South Korea-born American citizen.

Chang had learned about floods and landslides that had devastated several villages in the northern part of North Korea. Crops had been destroyed and people were dying of hunger.

Chang, a devout Christian, arranged to have tons of flour, corn and cooking oil shipped to those villages, with two stipulations.

One was that each bag and container had to have a cross on it, with the words in Korean: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Second, he had to visit the villages to be sure that the supplies were being distributed there.

Thus, our trip.

We were driven by a high-level government official for 10 hours north of Pyongyang. When we arrived at the villages, we were greeted by women and children, who sang words of welcome and gratitude.

An encounter in one of those villages was particularly memorable. As we were getting ready to leave, a young mother carrying her child, a boy not yet a year old, came over to me and held out her child, clearly wanting me to take him in my arms.

She had a pleading look on her face. She clearly wanted me to do something.

Hugging the boy, I closed my eyes and prayed for him, asking God to keep him safe and healthy. When I opened my eyes I kissed the child on the forehead and handed him back. She smiled, with tears streaming down her cheeks.

A second memorable encounter, also involving tears, occurred two days later, back in Pyongyang on a Sunday morning.

Our government hosts took us to a worship service at a church built by Presbyterian missionaries early in the 20th century.

We were told that it was one of the four legally permitted Christian worship services in the country. That it was not a one-time event staged for us was confirmed by German and Canadian diplomats who were present — they told us they worshipped there each week.

I was especially taken with the church’s choir, about 20 members who wore the kinds of robes that could be seen in many local Protestant congregations here in the U.S. They sang, in Korean, an evangelical favorite: “What a Friend We Have in Jesus.”

As they were singing the verse, which describes how Jesus understands when we are “weak and heavy laden, cumbered with a load of care,” I saw tears streaming down the cheeks of one of the choir members.

The little boy whom I held in the village should be about six years old now. I still pray for him. And I pray also for the woman in the choir whose tears I saw.

I despise Kim Jung Un, North Korea’s leader. But I don’t want us to declare war on his country. I offer up my prayers for peace regularly, but for me those prayers are associated with the tears on two faces.

Richard Mouw is professor of faith and public life at Fuller Theological Seminary, where he previously served as president for 20 years.

Every once in a while, one of us who serves as a consultant or coach at the Center for Healthy Churches is asked by a church leader, “Exactly what do you mean by a healthy church?”

That’s a fair question. Initially, you may be tempted to think, “Well, everyone knows what a healthy church is,” but upon further reflection you’d realize that is incorrect. There are many ways to define a healthy church, based largely on what metrics you use to think about the word “healthy.”

A couple of weeks ago, several of us from the center were gathered for one of our semiannual gatherings. We decided to come up with a definition of “healthy church” that would help us articulate what our understanding of what lies at the heart of the center’s work.

We spent several hours crafting a definition. We wanted it to reflect both our own long years of experience in creating healthy churches in congregations we had served as pastors as well as what we have learned from our years of working as consultants with church leaders from around the country.

We quickly came to a shared agreement about what metrics don’t inform our understanding of “healthy”:

• how many members a church has
• how big its budget is
• how “successful” it has been.

We’ve seen too many large, “successful” churches who exhibit unhealthy behaviors. We’ve also worked with too many small churches that exhibit robust health and vital mission.

After many drafts, we came up with a statement we feel captures the heart of our work. It also mirrors our understanding of the church’s call to be the body of Christ in and for the world.

This definition emerged from our discernment:

A healthy church is a community of Jesus followers with shared vision, thriving ministry, and trusted leadership.

Notice that this is a qualitative definition as opposed to a quantitative one. We focus on who the community understands itself to be and how it exhibits that understanding in its shared life. Rather than looking at how much a church is doing or what it has accomplished, we look instead at how much that church follows in the way of Jesus.

A healthy church understands its most fundamental call is to be a community of Jesus followers. This understanding turns us away from institutional concerns and toward discipleship commitments. Such a church is clear that its core purpose is to incarnate Christ’s healing and saving ministry in a hurting world, joining God in God’s work in that world in the power of the Holy Spirit.

A healthy church has a shared vision that all of its members seek to embody. When a church’s vision is fractured, its ministry’s impact weakens, both in its members’ lives and in the community God has given it to serve. Having a clear and focused vision invites us joyfully to align all our resources – spiritual, mental/emotional, physical, financial and structural – toward shared Kingdom work.

A healthy church has a thriving ministry. There is a sense of excitement and passion among its members. People experience meaning and purpose as they are given the opportunity to share their gifts. They experience God’s deep generosity and grace and are glad to give of themselves and their resources. They understand that their church has all it needs to accomplish the mission God has given it.

A healthy church has trusted leadership – both clergy and lay. A congregation that deeply trusts its leaders can face any adaptive challenge, respond with enthusiasm to any new call and work faithfully through any conflict that may arise. Clear communication and encouraging words and actions by leaders embolden the congregation to step out in faith.

This way of thinking about a “healthy church” reminds us of Paul’s metaphor of the church as a healthy body in Ephesians 4:

“We must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body’s growth in building itself up in love” (v. 15).

Our call at the Center for Healthy Churches is to help your congregation “build itself up in love,” so that your ministry can become ever more faithful, vital and full of hope. We would love to talk with you about how we might walk that path together.

A native of Mississippi, Jim Kitchens has served Presbyterian churches in California and Tennessee for almost 35 years. He loves helping congregations prayerfully discern how the Spirit calls them to adapt to changing cultural contexts. Jim is the author of The Postmodern Parish published by the Alban Institute. He is a consultant for the Center for Healthy Churches and the coordinator for CHC-West.

This article originally appeared on Center for Healthy Churches.

(RNS) — Astonishingly, for three years U.S. government bureaucrats have refused to help endangered religious minority communities like Christians and Yazidis survive the genocide ISIS began in 2014. These communities stand on the brink of extinction.

As a witness from Iraq testified at a congressional hearing I chaired Tuesday (Oct. 3) — the 10th hearing I have convened on the atrocities — “foreign aid decisions will determine whether Christianity and religious pluralism will survive in Iraq at all.”

The U.S. Agency for International Development is reviewing a proposal from the Nineveh Reconstruction Committee to repair 6,800 religious minority homes damaged or destroyed by ISIS on the Nineveh Plains of northern Iraq.

The NRC is an ecumenical partnership between the Chaldean Catholic Church, Syriac Catholic Church and Syriac Orthodox Church. It has already restored more than 2,200 houses and two towns, enabling more than 11,000 displaced Christians to return home. Two Christian charities, the Knights of Columbus and Aid to the Church in Need, have provided most of the funding, together with support from the government of Hungary. But more is needed.

The decision by USAID, led by former Ambassador Mark Green, about this proposal will determine whether the initiative proceeds and succeeds, or terminates, threatening the future of these communities.

Just before Christmas last year, I led a human rights mission to Erbil, in the Kurdistan region of Iraq, to meet with genocide survivors. We saw firsthand the medical care, food, shelter and education the Chaldean Catholic Archdiocese of Erbil was providing to most of the Christians who escaped ISIS, as well as some Yazidis and Muslims. The Nineveh Reconstruction Committee will be an efficient and cost-effective steward of U.S. resources and supports this proposal.

President Trump declared at the National Prayer Breakfast in February that mass murder and other atrocities ISIS committed against religious groups were genocide, and Vice President Pence and Secretary of State Tillerson later repeated his declaration — making him the second consecutive secretary of state to declare this genocide determination. There are two actions the president should take now to stop bureaucrats from obstructing assistance to genocide survivors whose very existence as a people teeters on a precipice.

First, the president should issue a presidential decision directive or presidential memorandum instructing the State Department and USAID to fund entities — including local faith-based ones — that can capably provide on-the-ground humanitarian and recovery assistance to the religious and ethnic minority communities targeted for genocide.

Second, the president should task a senior administration official to coordinate this effort and make sure these instructions are fully implemented. There should be accountability at the State Department and USAID if the internal obstruction continues.

Congress required the secretary of state to determine by March 17, 2016 whether violent Islamist extremists were committing genocide against Christians and people of other faiths in the Middle East. The House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution declaring the genocide two days before the determination was due and the Senate later unanimously passed a similar resolution. The budget for fiscal year 2017 required the State Department and USAID to use some of the funds specifically to assist genocide victims from religious minorities.

But career staff at the State Department and USAID have continued to ignore the genocide declarations (and the law). So Congress must do more. In September 2016, I introduced a bipartisan bill with my friend Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., to ensure U.S. assistance is directed to these communities and introduced it again as H.R. 390 (Iraq and Syria Genocide Emergency Relief and Accountability Act) almost immediately after the new Congress began this January. The House unanimously passed H.R. 390 in June and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously passed it in September. I hope the full Senate passes this urgently needed legislation.

Key government bureaucrats have been blind to people of faith for decades. They often see individuals merely as individuals or cases, rather than parts of a people or community of faith whose lives and destinies are beautifully bound together — and who are often targeted together. They also miss that prioritizing religious freedom globally enhances our national security, including our fight against terrorist groups that target religious groups as part of their ideology, propaganda and recruiting.

This is why my good friend former Congressman Frank Wolf authored the International Religious Freedom Act in 1998 and I authored the Frank Wolf International Religious Freedom Act that was signed into law in December. These laws are intended to ensure our government does not marginalize religious freedom abroad, nor favor particular religious groups nor discriminate against others (as some bureaucrats claim happens).

The same Christian faith that led me to public service and to fight for children, people with autism, veterans and victims of human trafficking, has also led me to dedicate myself to persecuted people of all faiths.

At the hearing I chaired on Tuesday, a young Yazidi woman who uses the name “Shireen” testified. She was abducted by ISIS and then enslaved, tortured and assaulted for nine months. She said she was sold five times to abusers. Shireen bravely recounted her own heartbreaking story, and testified about her 19 family members still missing, and the plight of the Yazidis and Christians. She told Congress:

“Yazidis, Christians and other religious minorities, especially the non-Muslim minorities, cannot survive in Syria and Iraq under the current conditions. Without serious action from you and the world governments many of these people will continue to flee their ancient homelands of Syria and Iraq.”

May Shireen’s courageous witness and testimony give voice to those who cannot speak for themselves: the murdered, the brutalized, the missing, those who rest in mass graves, and the many still believed to be enslaved and enduring unspeakable crimes. May her experience guide our actions and finally move us to do more to deliver desperately needed assistance to the survivors of the ISIS genocide.

Chris Smith of New Jersey, a Republican first elected to the House of Representatives in 1980, is a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and chairman of its global human rights subcommittee. He is also current co-chairman and past chairman of two U.S. human rights bodies: the U.S. Congressional Executive Commission on China and the Helsinki Commission. The views expressed in this opinion piece do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.

“I was an agnostic. But now I believe in God.” That’s what a young man named Taylor said on CNN the morning after another malicious gunman murdered 58 people and wounded over 527 (the present count) at a country music festival in Las Vegas, Nev., on Sunday, Oct. 1. The 64-year-old shooter took 23 firearms, many adapted to machine-gun-like capacity, to his room on the 32nd floor in the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino. From there he sprayed bullets across a crowd of some 22,000 people packed shoulder to shoulder, with little or no place to hide. …

And what of American churches? Are most too divided, declining, naïve, immobilized, silent to offer effective responses to firearm violence and the spiritual (yes, spiritual) issues that impact them? When an agnostic or two show up after this or the next shooting incident, will we have any good news?

Read more at Baptist News Global.

Me encanta la gente diversa, la comida, y los idiomas  a través del Estado de la Estrella Solitaria, especialmente el “sur de la frontera” con sus sonidos y sabores únicos. La cultura latina es parte de mi herencia y estoy orgulloso de servir a la Conferencia Nacional Hispana de Liderazgo Cristiano como Directora Ejecutiva de la Coalición de Fe y Educación. Me encanta trabajar con padres, pastores y líderes de todo el país que se preocupan profundamente por los estudiantes y la educación de alta calidad.

En muchas comunidades hispanas de Texas, pastores y miembros de la iglesia proveen conexiones educativas vitales para las familias. Desde los inmigrantes y los padres de habla hispana hasta los estudiantes universitarios de primera generación, estos “héroes de aprendizaje” ayudan a las familias locales a superar las brechas lingüísticas y culturales relacionadas con la educación. Invierten en estudiantes porque creen que cada niño es creado a la imagen de Dios y merece la oportunidad de alcanzar su potencial.

Una forma en que estos líderes de la iglesia ayudan a las familias a trazar un curso para el éxito escolar es alentándolos a construir una sólida asociación entre padres y maestros. Esto puede ser intimidante para los adultos que nunca completaron su propia educación, los que fueron educados en otros países, o los que no son fluidos en Inglés. Pero podemos animar a todos los padres a sacar el máximo provecho de esta temporada de “regreso a la escuela” con algunos consejos simples. Los padres pueden ser “héroes de aprendizaje” para sus hijos al comenzar el año escolar con estos cinco consejos:

1. Comience fuerte.

Averigüe cómo preparar a su hijo para su nuevo grado. Asegúrese de revisar los resultados de las pruebas estatales anuales del año pasado. Considere la posibilidad de usar el enfoque TAG (Reacción del maestro + Evaluaciones + Grados) para determinar cómo está progresando su estudiante y qué áreas pueden necesitar apoyo adicional. Si aún no ha recibido los resultados del examen STAAR de su hijo, visite www.TexasAssessment.com para ver los resultados de evaluación de su hijo del último año escolar, así como muchos otros recursos de los padres. Gran parte de esta información también está disponible en español.

2. Tenga Socios.

En su primera reunión de maestros, traiga los resultados de su estado de la prueba del estado y pregunte qué significan para este año. Averigüe lo que se espera de su hijo y lo que puede hacer en casa para ayudar. Usted puede prepararse para la primera reunión del maestro con consejos en BeALearningHero.org.

3. ¡Que sea divertido!

¡Usted es el experto en su niño y puede ayudar a hacer el aprendizaje fresco! Lean juntos sobre temas que interesan a su hijo. Encuentre las matemáticas en la vida cotidiana – conviértalo en un juego. ¡Los pequeños momentos de aprendizaje se suman!

4. Celebre el trabajo duro.

Concéntrese en el esfuerzo y lo que su hijo está aprendiendo. Celebre el trabajo duro y el progreso, en lugar de la perfección, y esto ayudará a su hijo a sentirse menos nervioso acerca de nuevas tareas o temas.

5. Fomentar las habilidades para la vida a lo largo del camino.

Fortalezas como ser capaz de comunicarse, resolver problemas y demostrar paciencia ayudarán a su hijo en la escuela y en la vida. Hable abiertamente con su hijo acerca de cómo él o ella se siente y reacciona ante situaciones en la escuela, en el patio de recreo y en casa. Padres y maestros y líderes de la iglesia pueden asociarse para ayudar a los estudiantes a alcanzar altos estándares, esperando y sacando lo mejor de cada niño.

Las buenas pruebas nos ayudan a medir si los estudiantes están en camino para el siguiente nivel de grado y, eventualmente, para el rigor de la universidad o carrera. Y el acceso a los resultados de las pruebas y otros datos de progreso, tanto en inglés como en español, permite a los padres convertirse en socios completos en la educación de sus hijos. Podemos honrar nuestra diversidad cultural al unir a los padres detrás de un objetivo común – excelentes oportunidades de educación para todos nuestros estudiantes de Texas.

Por Dra. Andrea Ramírez, Directora Ejecutiva, Coalición de Fe y Educación – NHCLC

I love the diverse people, food and languages across the Lone Star State, especially our “south of the border” sounds and flavors. Latino culture is part of my heritage, and I am proud to serve the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference as Executive Director of the Faith & Education Coalition. I love working with parents, pastors and leaders across the nation who care deeply about students and high-quality education.

In many Hispanic communities across Texas, pastors and church members provide vital education connections for families. From immigrants and Spanish-speaking parents to first-generation college students, these “learning heroes” help local families bridge the language and cultural divides related to education. They invest in students because they believe every child is created in God’s image and deserves the chance to meet his or her potential.

One way these church leaders help families chart a course for school success is by encouraging them to build a strong parent-teacher partnership. This can be intimidating for adults who never completed their own education, those who were educated in other countries, or those who are not fluent in English. But we can encourage all parents to make the most of this “back to school” season with a few simple tips.

Parents can be “learning heroes” for their children by starting the school year with these five tips:

1. Start strong.

Find out how prepared your child is for his or her new grade. Be sure to review the annual state test results from last year.  Consider using the TAG approach (Teacher feedback + Assessments + Grades) to determine how your student is progressing and what areas may need additional support. If you haven’t received your child’s STAAR test results yet, visit www.TexasAssessment.com to view your child’s assessment results from last school year – as well as many other parent resources. Much of this information is also available in Spanish.

2. Partner up.

At your first teacher meeting, bring your child’s state test results and ask what they mean for this year. Find out what’s expected of your child and what you can do at home to help. You can prepare for the first teacher meeting with tips at BeALearningHero.org

3. Make it fun!

You are the expert on your child and can help make learning cool! Read together on topics that interest your child. Find math in everyday life – turn it into a game. Small learning moments add up!

4. Celebrate hard work.

Focus on the effort and what your child is learning. Celebrating hard work and progress, rather than perfection, will help your child feel less nervous about new tasks or subjects.

5. Encourage life skills along the way.

Strengths such as being able to communicate, problem-solve and demonstrate patience will help your child in school and life. Talk openly with your child about how he or she is feeling and reacting to situations at school, on the playground and at home.

Parents and teachers and church leaders can partner to help students reach high standards, expecting and bringing out the best in each child. Good tests help us gauge if students are on track for the next grade level and, eventually, for the rigor of college or career. And accessing test results and other progress data, in both English and Spanish, empowers parents to become full partners in their child’s education. We can honor our cultural diversity as we unite parents behind a common goal – excellent education opportunities for all our Texas students.

Dr. Andrea Ramirez serves as the Executive Director of the Faith and Education Coalition for the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Coalition (NHCLC), America’s Largest Hispanic Christian Evangelical Organization.

“It is not an enemy who taunts me – I could bear that. It is not my foes who so arrogantly insult me – I could have hidden from them. Instead, it is you – my equal, my companion and close friend. What good fellowship we once enjoyed as we walked together to the house of God.” —Psalm 55:12–14

We have long known that domestic violence exists, affecting one in three women in Texas. There are no racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, educational or age-related boundaries when it comes to abuse—nor is it defined by religious affiliation.

Domestic violence is a worldwide epidemic, and in order to end it, we need to understand that it affects all of us, including those within the church and within your congregation.

Faith communities are often the first responders for those experiencing domestic violence, as many people turn to their faith for answers before seeking support or counseling outside of their place of worship. Unfortunately, leaders and members of the church are often ill-equipped to know how to respond to abuse or don’t think it happens within their own congregations.

The truth is that women in faith communities are at a higher risk of being abused, less likely to leave the abusive relationship and least likely to reach out to experts for help.

Although the faith community may have the best intentions in responding to domestic violence situations, too often, victims hear blaming or are given advice that unintentionally perpetuates the abuse and excuses the abuser. Abusers may manipulate scriptures like Ephesians 5 or Proverbs 31 to keep women in abusive homes for fear of displeasing their God.

Given the escalation patterns and potentially lethal nature of domestic violence, it becomes an even greater responsibility for all intersections of the faith community to respond effectively by turning to the experts, establishing a church-wide commitment against domestic violence and actively taking an individual stance by getting involved.

Rely on the experts

The church is not immune to secular problems like alcoholism or domestic violence. Considering that domestic abuse is the leading cause of injury to families, all faith communities—including both leaders and members—need to be prepared to face this issue. We cannot ignore it when it happens, nor can we pretend it doesn’t happen in our church.

To end this epidemic, the church isn’t expected to be an expert on the issue, but rather to stand beside victims, believe them, tell them there is help and hold abusers accountable.

There are resources available like Genesis Women’s Shelter & Support, an organization that exists to give women and children in abusive situations a path to lead independent and safe lives. They are the experts so you don’t have to be, providing staff trainings and materials on how to respond to domestic violence from the pulpit to the pew.

Establish a church-wide commitment against domestic violence

We are called to hold abusers accountable: if you suspect something, say something.

The Bible says again and again, “Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear.” Suppose the news of the gospel was only talked about at church once a year; imagine the missed opportunity. Similarly, domestic violence shouldn’t only be discussed one Sunday a year during October for Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

In order to truly make an impact, the church needs to be blanketed with this message, from informational cards in the women’s restroom to sermons on Sunday and in Sunday school classes. If you don’t know where to start, Genesis Women’s Shelter can help determine the best ways to reach your congregation.

For a woman to hear and believe that she is worth it, she must receive the same message everywhere she goes — Genesis, the police, the courts and from her faith community.

Take an individual stance by getting involved

Understanding the intersection between faith and domestic violence is the first step in responding effectively. At Genesis, we recognize the incredible opportunity and responsibility we have to partner with faith communities to support our mission. With this in mind, we have launched the Genesis Faith Community Coalition.

The Faith Community Coalition’s mission is to unite and mobilize faith communities to respond effectively to domestic violence by spreading awareness and providing resources. Our hope is to see congregations and leaders join Genesis in recognizing abuse within the faith community and standing up on behalf of survivors.

If we ever hope to end the epidemic of domestic violence, we can’t ignore it when it happens, and we can’t pretend it doesn’t happen in our church. Both abusers and victims are in our choirs, in our pews and in our congregations.

If you or someone you know is experiencing domestic violence, call Genesis’ 24-hour hotline at 214.946.HELP(4357) or visit GenesisShelter.org for more information. If you’d like to discuss ways your congregation can take a stand against domestic violence, please reach out to me at 214-389-7709 or email jlangbein@genesisshelter.org.

Jan Langbein is president and CEO of Genesis Women’s Shelter.

Editor’s note: At a rally Friday in Huntsville, Ala., President Trump called on NFL owners to release players who took a knee during the national anthem like former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who intended to draw attention to police violence against African Americans. Here, Michael Frost reflects on the differences between Kaepernick and Tim Tebow.

They’re both Christian football players, and they’re both known for kneeling on the field, although for very different reasons.

One grew up the son of Baptist missionaries to the Philippines. The other was baptized Methodist, confirmed Lutheran, and attended a Baptist church during college.

Both have made a public display of their faith. Both are prayerful and devout.

This is the tale of two Christian sports personalities, one of whom is the darling of the American church while the other is reviled. And their differences reveal much about the brand of Christianity preferred by many in the church today.

Read the rest of the article at The Washington Post.