44 Sermon Illustrations on Respect

“Be beautiful if you can, wise if you want to... But be respected — that is essential.”

-- Anna Gould

“The Bible gives us a list of human stories on both sides of the ledger. One list of human stories is used as examples – do what these people did. Another list of human stories is used as warnings – don’t do what these people did. So if your story ever gets in one of these books, make sure they use it as an example, not a warning.”

-- Jim Rohn

“You can’t build a reputation on what you’re going to do.”

-- Henry Ford

"It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently."

-- Warren Buffett, Quotes From the Masters (QFTM) 2/22/03

"The reputation of a thousand years may be determined by the conduct of one hour."

-- Japanese Proverb

““Reputation is what men and women think of us; character is what God and angels know of us.”

-- Thomas Paine (1737-1809) [also attributed to Horace Mann (1796 - 1859) -- see note 1 below]

________

1. Paine's quote has been variously attributed. "Reputation is what men and women think of us, character is what God and the angels know of us" is attributed to Thomas Paine in A Dictionary of Terms, Phrases, and Quotations (1895) edited by Henry Percy Smith, and Helen Kendrick Johnson.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Horace_Mann notes that it is attributed to Horace Mann, in The Wordsworth Dictionary of Quotations (1998) edited by Connie Robertson, but the earliest published variant of such a declaration seem to be in an anecdote about an anonymous Boston woman in 1889: "I have the reputation of being of good moral character. But you know reputation is what people think of us, while character is what God and the angels know of us, and that I don’t want to tell." (Anonymous Boston woman, as quoted in Current Opinion [1889]).

Price Collier, in Sermons (1892) put it this way: "There is a very great difference — is there not? — between the temporal and the eternal judgments, a very great difference between a man’s reputation and a man’s character, for reputation is what men think and say of us, while character is what God and the angels know of us."

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #18615]

Parents don't always deserve honor, but when we give it to them anyway we obey God and reap benefits.

I. Honor is the highest form of love.

A. Attach value to them and treat them like valuable treasures.

B. The only way to achieve real freedom from the effects of a

dishonoring parent is to honor that person.

II. The high price of dishonor.

A. Every time we dishonor our father, we lower our own sense of

self-worth.

B. Rejecting our parents robs us emotionally, but also physically.

C. We rob ourselves of an intimate relationship with God.

III. The way to honor.

A. We honor our parents when we listen carefully to their counsel.

1) Not "obedience no matter what."

B. We honor our parents when we praise them. Prov 20:20

C. When honoring our parents, we must still maintain healthy

boundaries.

IV. Finding freedom in honor.

A. When we choose to bestwon honor, even when it isn't deserved,

we liberate ourselves.

Can 'character education' save the public schools? Our local junior high school displays huge hallway banners reading, "Respect and Responsibility -- We Can Do It Together." Respect, this year's theme, is meant to pervade the multiethnic school. (Last year compassion and caring took the lead.)

At the annual back-to-school night, our principal took a few minutes to explain the theme to us parents, then turned the program over to the cheerleaders. They illustrated respect by lip-synching a bump-and-grind rendition of Aretha Franklin's song of the same name. At the final beat, they turned around, bent over, flipped up their cheerleader skirts, and displayed the word RESPECT, spelled out on pieces of paper pinned to their bottoms. I nudged my wife: "I don't think they've completely grasped the concept." Which is roughly what I thought when I learned of the existence of a movement in the public schools to teach children virtuous character. Are educators, I wondered, really ready for this? [used 7/7/96]

Still, the very existence of the character-education movement catches your attention. For some time, public schools have been saying that values are not part of their curriculum. It is news when a substantial group in public education says, "Yes, they are."

I have on my desk a brochure from the Character Development Foundation in Manchester, New Hampshire. Intended to attract teachers to a one-day seminar, it proclaims boldly, "You can teach kids to be smart & Good!" Good is defined (in language typical of the character-education movement) by the traits of self-control, respect, responsibility, honesty, courage, caring, courtesy, and friendship. Character education claims to teach old-fashioned values to kids who are not getting them at home.

It would be hard to be against such an undertaking. Surely it is part of a school's job to help parents turn their children into decent, responsible, moderately polite human beings. Yet it is also hard to entrust character confidently to the same people who embraced the values education of Planned Parenthood.

RIGHT AND WRONG REVISITED

In Washington, D.C., I attended a national conference put on by a coalition of organizations called the Character Education Partnership. Most of the several hundred people in attendance were schoolteachers or school administrators, cheerful and energetic people who were launching character-education programs in local schools all over the country, or thinking about it. Some very large school systems, such as those from Baltimore and Saint Louis, were represented, as were many smaller places. Vocal supporters ranged from a Democratic White House aide to a conservative Republican senator, and organizations running the gamut -- from the Rainbow Coalition to the National Association of Evangelicals.

By all the signs, character education is a grassroots movement, springing up in a hundred different places. There is, so far, no "right" way to do it. Its popularity is perhaps best shown by the fact that educational entrepreneurs are jumping in, looking for a profit. At my first seminar, I met Robert Barden, a friendly, long-haired representative of the Cumberland County Schools in North Carolina. He told me of all kinds of gimmicky presentations people had brought to his school system, including a high-energy performance from a salesman dressed -- for reasons unclear to Barden -- in a NASA jumpsuit.

I hadn't gone to many seminars before I realized that character education is not the same thing as the "discipline" parents often want in school. Character education is much more upbeat and optimistic than that. As one principal told me, "Some parents want regimentation, and this is the very opposite."

Character education does emphasize clearly defined and enforced rules, but that is just one part of it. Character education tries to form the kind of person who does what is right without his being told and when he is not being watched. Strict rules and harsh punishments may prompt compliance, these educators say, but the behavior will not necessarily carry over to another environment. As Thomas Lickona, a professor of education at the State University of New York, writes in his book "Educating for Character," "Good character consists of knowing the good, desiring the good, and doing the good -- habits of the mind, habits of the heart, and habits of action."

Character education is not shy about using the terms right and wrong. Lickona notes that just a few years ago, the question "Should the schools teach values?" would be answered by the retort "Whose values?" "With remarkable swiftness," he writes, "that has changed. Escalating moral problems in society ... are bringing about a new consensus." The "rights" and "wrongs" character educators want to bring back are consensus values, those that everybody can agree on. They ardently avoid including issues like abortion or homosexuality, putting the emphasis on teaching values that are, they claim, timeless and invariable across cultures. They talk about teaching "civic" virtues, those foundations of citizenship assumed in the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Character-education advocates are not very philosophical about it, though. They want to teach the agreed-on values of the community they live in. And they assert that we agree on a lot more than we realize.

For example, Robert Barden helped launch Fayetteville, North Carolina's program. One rainy night 700 interested people gathered in a school gym to decide on a list of values to teach. Every strand of the community was represented, from fundamentalists to feminists, Barden says, and he was not overly confident about reaching consensus. But to his and everyone's surprise, the meeting unanimously agreed on seven core values. Now, he says, the community is solidly behind the program.

People launching character-education programs often express surprise at the level of unanimity they achieve. The Saint Louis PREP program (Personal Responsibility Education Process) incorporates 23 different school districts, each of which chooses its own character traits to teach. Almost 50 different terms appear on their various lists: Respect and responsibility were chosen by nearly all districts. Honesty, cooperation, self-esteem, and perseverance were claimed by more than half. Traits like abstinence, reliability, and self-control were chosen by a few. What is remarkable is not the values, but the fact that schools are excitedly talking about values at all.

The "New York Times," in an article published in January of this year, estimates that one out of every five public schools has some kind of character-education program in place. Most character-education programs are in elementary schools; some are in middle schools; and a few are in high schools. The programs vary widely. Many include schoolwide recognition for kids who behave well, a virtue-of-the-month program (usually underlined by posters in the halls), literature-based lessons that emphasize moral themes (much like William Bennett's best-selling "Book of Virtues"), training for students in conflict resolution, cooperative-learning strategies like "buddy- learning," and programs to improve behavior in the cafeteria, on the playground, and on school buses.

Any of these programs can be added on individually to a school's program, but character-education leaders emphasize that a comprehensive program is best so that the various facets complement one another. Ideally, they like to offer training to the school's teachers and staff. Behind it all is an idea of what a school should be: a community of people rather than a building, a place where one generation transmits its knowledge and its morals to the next. That, obviously, is what church schools have been trying to do from the beginning. The idea that public schools can have much the same purpose and meaning is a new, invigorating one to many educators.

BEYOND VALUES CLARIFICATION

David Brooks, head of the Jefferson Center for Character Education, described overhearing a student asking his teacher whether a certain action was wrong. "That's for you to decide for yourself," the teacher said.

"I wanted to strangle that teacher," commented Brooks.

His response is typical of people involved with character education. They are weary of teaching kids that the center of the moral universe is in their heads. The notion that schools should be value neutral irritates them. Not teaching right and wrong is a value in itself, they say.

Character education often gets confused with "values clarification," a program of the sixties that explicitly rejected teaching right and wrong. The very mention of values clarification makes character-education advocates wince. Many educators see it as emblematic of a certain style of education, emphasizing the likelihood that kids, properly stimulated to reflect, will naturally choose to become caring, respectful individuals. Values clarification usually emphasized "hard case" predicaments and theoretical situations, asking kids to assign seats on an overcrowded lifeboat rather than to deal with cheating, fighting, stealing, and name calling.

Better, but still inadequate, were moral-education programs built on Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning. "Their focus was still on 'process' -- thinking skills -- rather than moral content," writes Lickona. "Teachers still didn't see it as their role to teach or foster particular values."

That, in a nutshell, is what gives energy to character-education programs: they are rejecting relativism, returning to old-fashioned virtues, teaching right and wrong. The means are prosaic. Nobody, surely, gets excited about putting up foil stars in the office and nominating admirable students, staff, and parents for "Shining Star" awards. Yet people do get excited about character education that majors on just such programs. The character- education conference seemed overrun with idealistic men and women who love kids and want them to become decent human beings. A good number volunteered to me that they are Christians.

One seminar I attended was led by Michael Loren, a physician who had profited from a moral improvement program he found in Ben Franklin's writings. Loren had adapted the program for school children, but as he explained, had felt it necessary to change some of Franklin's 13 virtues. "I thought, 'Chastity -- how am I going to sell this to the schools?'" He had replaced chastity with friendship, and changed temperance to alertness. But Loren, it seemed, had misjudged his audience. Someone raised a hand and suggested that he could have stayed with the original words, and others muttered agreement.

White House aide William Galston came to talk to the conference. "We're winning," he said. "We're winning this battle. The need for this work can no longer be denied." He said that a great social experiment had been tried in America, "based on personal freedom checked only by law," and the evidence was in: "No government and no society has enough courts to get people to do the right thing. The issue is knowing the good, loving the good, and, I would add, having a settled habit of doing the good."

Regarding teen pregnancies, Galston said, "Ten years ago, the conventional wisdom was that it was a problem without a solution." But now, he said, they had winnowed half a dozen successful programs out of hundreds and found one common component: they treated teenage pregnancy as a psychological and moral problem, not as a technological or medical problem. He called for a "clear moral message of personal responsibility, resisting temptation and, in many cases, resisting intimidation." The audience responded positively to the mention of abstinence-based programs, though some attendees told me they had avoided adding any sex education to their curriculum for fear of controversy.

After attending the Washington conference I had no doubt that character education was a real grassroots movement, appealing to a broad range of educators. What I could not figure out was how seriously to take it. Was it like those congressional resolutions to favor a balanced budget: all sensibility, no teeth? Does it do anything for children?

[see also #3630-31]

In his book with Ken Blanchard, EVERYONE'S A COACH, Don Shula tells of losing his temper near an open microphone during a televised game with the Los Angeles Rams. Millions of viewers were surprised and shocked by Shula's explicit profanity. Letters soon arrived from all over the country, voicing the disappointment of many who had respected the coach for his integrity.

Shula could have given excuses, but he didn't. Everyone who included a return address received a personal apology. He closed each letter by stating, “I value your respect and will do my best to earn it again.”

There are two ways to gain respect. One is to act nobly. The other is, when you fail to do so, to make no excuses.

Sermon in 1 Peter series. The duties of husbands. 1 Peter 3:7

========================

WHAT A HUSBAND HAS TO DO

========================

I. Do Christians have to submit to control freaks?

II. Marriage must be reciprocal.

A. Everybody has to follow Jesus.

B. Responsibility is never just on one side.

C. New concept in ancient world: we're in it together.

III. The obligations of a Christian husband:

A. Be understanding and considerate.

B. Be chivalrous and respectful.

C. Remember that women have equal spiritual rights. Galatians 3:28

IV. Bringing down the barriers.

A. Hindered prayers.

B. The joys of marriage must belong to both, or none at all.

C. Keep the horizontal in tune with the vertical.

#4141

*

The elderly Rabbi was flying first class where he would be more comfortable, and his grandson was flying coach. The Rabbi was sitting next to a scientist, and they shared some pleasantries. The scientist noticed that the grandson kept coming up to check on his grandfather, make sure he was comfortable, get some food or drink for him, help him up, etc.

It was nonstop help and attention, and he commented on it to the Rabbi, saying, “It’s simply wonderful. Look how beautifully your grandson treats you! My children and grandchildren would never travel anywhere together with me, and certainly would never put so much effort into helping me out. How do you do it?”

The Rabbi replied, “It’s really quite simple. You believe in evolution. By that theory, your children are one step further from the apes than you are. I believe that man was created in the image of God. By that theory, I am one step closer to God than my children are. So of course our grandchildren treat us correspondingly.

From Erma Bombeck's Column:

“I was listening to the radio one day to a child psychologist who said that parents should treat their children with respect as they would treat their best friend - with courtesy, dignity, and diplomacy. I've never treated my children any other way, I told myself. But later that night, I got to thinking about it.

“Suppose our good friends, Fred and Eleanor, came over and I treated them as I sometimes do my children? Dinner might go like this:

'Well, it's about time you two got here! What have you been doing, dawdling? Shut the door, Fred; were you born in a barn?'

'Well, Eleanor, how have you been? I've been meaning to have you folks over for ages'

'Fred, take it easy on the dip, or it will ruin your dinner.'

'Have you heard from any of the old gang lately? I got a card from the Martins just the other day. They're in Fort Lauderdale again.'

'What's the matter, Fred? You're fidgeting! ... It's down the hall, the first door on the left, and I don't want to see a towel in the middle of the floor when you're finished, either!'

'How are the children doing?'

'Well, if everybody's hungry, why don't we go in to dinner? You all wash up, and I'll dish up the food. Don't tell me your hands are clean, Eleanor. I saw you playing with the dog.'

'Fred, you sit there, and Eleanor, you sit with the half glass of milk. You know you're all elbows when it comes to milk.'

'Fred, I don't see any cauliflower on your plate. You don't like cauliflower? Have you tried it like I fix it? Well, you try a spoonful. If you don't like it I won't make you finish it, but if you don't try it, forget the dessert!'

'Now, what were we talking about? Oh yes, the Gruebers. They sold their house. I understand they took quite a loss on it.'

'Eleanor, don't talk with food in your mouth; and use your napkin!'

“At that moment in my fantasy, my son walked into the room. 'How nice of you to come,' I said pleasantly.

'Now what did I do?’ he sighed.”

Respect. It is a powerful component in mercy.

__________

Source: Call to Joy, by Don Jacobsen, Copyright (c) 2001, ISBN 0828016240; submitted by Al Stober

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #5802]

Mat found a new young doctor for his 90-year-old mother, whose

family physician had died. After the examination the doctor called

them into his office, and ignoring Mat's mother, proceeded to give him

the results. Mat's mother interrupted and said, "Doctor, do you do

crossword puzzles?" "Yes, I do," he replied. She then asked, "Do you

do them with pencil or pen?" "Why, with a pencil," said the doctor.

"Well, I do mine with a pen." she said, "So you can talk to me."

True story: A Midwestern couple vacationing in New York takes a taxi across town. The man hands the driver $10 and politely asks for change. The cabbie smiles, returns a few bills and says, "Have a nice day."

It's an increasingly common scene. The surly New York cab driver - the swerving, swearing speed demon who's as much a part of city lore as Broadway marquees and hot-pretzel vendors - may be a thing of the past, city officials say.

Complaints against cabbies have fallen by nearly 30 percent in the past two years, to their lowest level in a decade. And more people than ever are phoning the city's taxi hotline to pay compliments.

"We were surprised - it wasn't bad at all," tourist Marvin Cashman of Centralia, Ill., said recently as he stepped out of a cab on Fifth Avenue. "I guess you're sort of, you know, conditioned to expect this sort of near-death experience. Like they're monsters behind the wheel or something."

Since 1998, city officials who license New York's more than 40,000 cab drivers have taken steps to weed out rude and unsafe cabbies and reward the ones who make customers happy - from returning lost property to simply being pleasant.

"There's been a real turnaround in the industry," says Matthew Daus, head of the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission. "It's about simple respect, mutual respect. And it's a snowball effect as time has gone on."

The steps include linking police citations for unsafe driving to a point system that can lead to suspension of a driver's taxi license. Officials also started adding points for drivers found repeatedly to be rude.

A four-hour training course for cabbies now emphasizes the delicate relationship between cab driver and customer - when to strike up a conversation, for example, and judging when passengers just want to be left alone.

"If I know they're tourists, I just try to talk to them," cabbie Doug Hantman said. "And then as I'm taking them into the city I just point out some landmarks. Just be personable. And it's a very nice cab ride, and they're appreciative."

At the same time, the commission has emphasized recognition for drivers who are complimented by customers. This summer the city held its first ceremony for those drivers, a move designed to instill a sense of pride in cabbies.

The numbers say the city's approach is working.

New figures show passengers filed 10,183 complaints against cabbies during fiscal year 2002, which ended June 30. That was down from 12,903 in 2001 and 14,129 in 2000. Complaints are at their lowest levels in a decade.

Service refusals dropped, too, to 2,329 this fiscal year from 3,184 last year. Reports of overcharges - the city regulates cab fare - fell to 1,225 this year from 1,656 last year. [...]

Hantman said he hopes those figures will help erode the negative image attached to New York cabbies by television, movies and crass jokes.

"There's a real mystique about us, I guess," he said.

*

• When I was: Four years old: My daddy can do anything.

• When I was: Five years old: My daddy knows a whole lot.

• When I was: Six years old: My dad is smarter than your dad.

• When I was: Eight years old: My dad doesn’t know exactly everything.

• When I was: 10 years old: In the olden days, when my dad grew up, things were sure different.

• When I was: 12 years old: Oh, well, naturally, Dad doesn’t know anything about that. He is too old to remember his childhood.

• When I was: 14 years old: Don’t pay any attention to my dad. He is so old-fashioned.

• When I was: 21 years old: Him? He’s hopelessly out of date.

• When I was: 25 years old: Dad knows about it, but then he should, because he has been around so long.

• When I was: 30 years old: Maybe we should ask Dad what he thinks. After all, he’s had a lot of experience.

• When I was: 35 years old: I’m not doing a single thing until I talk to Dad.

• When I was: 40 years old: I wonder how Dad would have handled it. He was so wise.

• When I was: 50 years old: I’d give anything if Dad were here now so I could talk this over with him. Too bad I didn’t appreciate how smart he was. I could have learned a lot from him.

I love watching Jay Leno's HEADLINES on Monday nights. He reads real headlines that have been clipped from newspapers, then gives a condensed version of the story. Some of them are absolutely hilarious. But then some of them are downright bizarre. Some of them even leave a bad taste in my mouth. For one show Leno read:

MINISTER ARRESTED OVER DISPUTE WITH MEMBER.

Police were called when the Pastor of a small church and a member

got in an argument over the interpretation of Scripture. The

disagreement turned into an argument; and the argument turned

into a regular knock down drag out, Donnybrook. When police

showed up, the minister had a woman pinned against the wall, his

arm at her throat, shouting, “Are you going to show me some

respect now? Are you?”

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #6217]

One thing we learn from the Asian culture is the importance of paying respect to older people. In contrast, our culture is more focused on youth, often paying little or no respect to those who are older and wiser. Grandparents long to know that their lives are important to their children and grandchildren.

Some ways children can love their grandparents:

• Write a special prayer of thanks for your grandparents. Pray it, then send it to them, saying, This is what I thanked God for today. Pray for them every day.

• Change your attitude. Do you grow impatient and irritable toward a grandparent who isn’t able to keep up with you? -or unable to hear as well as she used to? -or doesn’t drive like he used to? Decide to love them thoroughly, no matter what.

• Email your grandparents. Get in the habit of writing to them on a regular basis. It doesn’t have to be a long letter. A quick note about what you did at school, or a joke will brighten their day.

• Write a “real” letter. There are few things more precious than a hand-written letter from a grandchild. Ask them questions about their growing up. You’ll find out how different – and how similar – your lives are.

• Make gifts. Younger children can decorate a placemat for Grandma or Grandpa. Make them a scrapbook of your schoolwork. Add notes about the assignments and your thoughts about what you did.

• Buy them something silly: a candy bar, a slinky, a bottle of bubbles, a funny card, or a stuffed animal.

• Plant a tree on your grandfather’s or grandmother’s birthday and tell him or her about it.

• Donate a book to the library in honor of your grandparents, or give money to a special mission project.

• Send pictures of your family doing everyday things and write silly captions for each. Ask them to send you pictures of them.

• Write their biography. You’ll need lots of help from your grandparents.

• Share your secrets with them.

• Give lots of kisses and hugs.

• Speak clearly. If one of your grandparents has difficulty hearing you, stand three feet in front of them and speak clearly – while looking directly at them. You don’t have to shout.

If your grandparents live nearby:

• Help them. Rake leaves, vacuum the carpet, wash some windows or the car, polish their shoes. Give them computer lessons. Don’t wait to be asked.

• Take them some balloons or flowers – just for the fun of it.

• Do something together. Invite them to watch a sunrise or sunset with you, take a bike ride, or to work on a jigsaw puzzle. Invite them to a dinner you have helped prepare. Or take them out to dinner, just the two or three of you. Leave your parents at home.

• Ask your grandparents’ opinions on Bible verses, items in the newspaper, or events in world history.

If your grandparents live far away:

• Send packages. Send them some cookies you have baked, or something you have made.

• Make a tape of favorite music – of theirs, of yours, of your parents’. Or sing some songs that you’ve made up.

• Plan a special family vacation for three generations. Select a location and activity all of you can enjoy. Leave plenty of time for storytelling and sharing memories. Take lots of pictures

In the book “Wooden on Leadership,” legendary basketball coach John Wooden explains that, to him, a potential recruit’s character was as important as his athletic ability. And, according to the coach, how a person treats his or her mother is very revealing.

To illustrate this point, Wooden shares the following story:

“I once interviewed a very talented young man who wanted to attend UCLA on a basketball scholarship. I was even prepared to offer him a scholarship during our meeting.

“His mother was there, and at one point she politely asked me a question. Her son immediately looked over at her and snapped, ‘How can you be so ignorant? Just keep your mouth shut and listen to what the coach says.’

“I assured her that her question was fine and answered it. The young man, however, had revealed an aspect of himself that wasn’t fine. In fact, it was unacceptable to me: disrespect for his mother.

“If he couldn’t respect her, how could he possibly respect me when things got tough? I politely ended the meeting and excused myself. The scholarship was never offered.”

Upon reading Coach Wooden’s story, I was reminded of another.

A teenager entered the kitchen one evening while his mother was preparing dinner. As the boy sauntered through the room, he placed a slip of paper on the counter. He then took a seat at the table and waited quietly.

When she found a moment to pause from her meal preparation, mom dried her hands on her apron. She picked up the paper and read what her son had written:

Cutting the grass: $10.00

Cleaning my room all week: $5.00

Running errands: $2.00

Two hours of baby-sitting: $10.00

Taking out the garbage: $2.00

Maintaining good grades: $5.00

Total owed: $34.00

The boy studied his mother as she examined his “bill.” She said nothing, but fished a pen from the pocket of her apron. Mom turned the paper over and began to write. In a few moments she stopped, placed the pen and paper on the counter and continued preparing dinner.

Curious, the boy walked over and picked up his “bill,” and read what his mother had written:

Nine months of pregnancy: No charge.

Late night feedings: No charge.

Diaper changes: No charge.

Potty training: No charge.

Bandaging scrapes and scratches: No charge.

Bedtime stories: No charge.

Doctor and dentist visits: No charge.

Taxi service: No charge.

Academic tutoring: No charge.

Seasonal cheerleading: No charge.

Hugs and encouragement: No charge.

Etiquette training: No charge.

Food procurement and meal preparation: No charge.

Clothes, toys, etc.: No charge.

Total owed: No charge.

When the boy looked up from the paper, his eyes were filling with tears. He took the pen from the counter, turned the paper over and hastily scribbled on it.

He handed the paper to his mom. She looked at it. Written across the “bill” were the words “paid in full.” The boy hugged his mother and whispered, “I love you.”

While moms deserve appreciation much more than once a year, Mother’s Day provides a special opportunity for children to say, “Thanks mom, I love you!”

You might ask, “What if my mother is not like the one described in the story?” Sadly, not all moms fulfill their roles as admirably as the one mentioned above. However, the Bible instructs us to honor our mothers. That means we are to treat them with dignity and respect.

How do you honor a mom that has not been the model mother? Jesus said that we should treat others the way we would want them to treat us. How would you like your mother to treat you? Respond to her in that manner.

“But,” you say, “Compared to my mother the Wicked Witch of the West from the Wizard of Oz looks like the citizen of the year.” That might well be, but unless you are still wearing diapers, you can at least be thankful she potty trained you!

It is all too easy to accentuate the negative of a mom who was not a model parent. However, on Mother’s Day take time to focus on what she did that was positive.

For Coach Wooden, how a person treated his or her mother provided valuable insight into an individual’s true colors. According to the coach, disrespect and a lack of courtesy reveal an attitude of ingratitude. And it is an attitude he would rather do without.

Make your mom’s day special. Thank her for what she did right!

________

Kelly Boggs, whose column appears each Friday in Baptist Press, is pastor of the Portland-area Valley Baptist Church in McMinnville, Ore.

*

When one of my sons responded recently to a grown woman with a “yeah,” he received discipline from his father. It was a lesson passed down through the generations, because I received the same discipline. One responded to a grown man with a “yes sir” and to a grown woman with a “yes ma'am.” I grew up in an intentionally undignified Sandy Creek tradition Baptist church. We sang “Count Your Many Blessings,” not “The Lord Is in His Holy Temple.” Still, our pastor was “Brother Naron.” If we had called him by his first name, we would have walked a familiar path to the switch tree.

This may be chalked up to Southern culture, and indeed it is rooted in old patterns of Southern manners. But what if Southern sensibilities about terms of address were rooted in something older yet?

Steve Hutchens, my fellow editor at Touchstone magazine, has raised on the magazine's website the issue of manners and terms of address. He rightly contrasts the modern egalitarian ideal with a Christian view that goes far beyond manners.

“As Christians we are bound to give honor to those to whom honor is due, which includes the honor due everyone as made in the image of God (it is why we should both execute murderers and treat them humanely; it is why we treat unborn children as whole people), and then also of the 'office' he or she bears, beginning with 'Father' and 'Mother,'“ Hutchens writes. “This is why, I suspect, the various leveling movements in the history of the church have attracted only minorities, and have been very susceptible to heresy. Refusal to recognize the hierarchies placed in the world by its Maker, after his own image, is a recipe for not only theological but cultural disaster.”

Could such words sound any more alien to contemporary American culture, even conservative evangelical culture?

I sometimes still feel strange and rude calling my mentor, teacher and president Albert Mohler by his first name, even though I'm now his vice president rather than his research assistant and student. And yet, I'm amazed at how many Gen Y Southern Baptists speak about “Al” or “Paige” (although, remarkably, should any of the men referenced actually be present, such familiarity predictably reverts back to “Dr. Mohler” or “Dr. Patterson” or what have you).

Terms of address can be overdone, of course. Jesus counsels against those who insist on elaborate recognitions in public places (Matt 23:1-7). He insists we recognize that our ultimate “father” and “Rabbi” (Matt 23:8-11) is not human but divine in the same way no one is anything but relatively good (Matt 19:17). But Jesus also recognized authority and even hierarchy in the choosing of the foundation stones of his temple, apostles whose authority was recognized by the church, and is still recognized as we listen to the Spirit through the Holy Scriptures they were inspired to write.

The problem with teaching honor through terms of address comes down to the fact that many people believe the issue is personal. When I tell my boys to say hello to “Mr. Smith,” Smith will often respond by saying, “Oh, it is fine for him to call me John.” Well, no, it really is not fine, because the issue is not what they call Smith.

The issue is instead that I want them to understand respect for elders and honor for authority. I want them to understand this not so John Smith will feel honored or respected or anything else. I want them to do so for the same reason they call me “Dad” and not “Russell D.” I want them to do so that ultimately they will understand and follow a Lord and a King.

Yes, I realize I'm probably a bit hyper-scrupulous about this. Mississippi mores are not easily overcome. But I want to raise three young men who are able to look King Jesus in the eye, and then bow before him on the Day of Judgment. I want them to understand the goodness of hierarchy when hierarchy is good. I want to see our Lord Christ ask them if they wish to enter into a new creation which is not an egalitarian democracy but a glorious monarchy.

And I want to hear them say “Yes sir.”

*

Louise Casey, the “respect tsar” for United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair’s “Respect Task Force”, thinks it’s time for Britons to be more polite. “There’s a public service responsibility to try to uphold certain standards of decency,” she said, and everyone should do a good deed every day. “It’s important to help old ladies across the road,” she said as an example. “I’d love London buses to have announcements telling passengers to give up their seats to pregnant women.”[1]

Randy Cassingham adds the comment: “I’d prefer a society that did that without being told.”

________

1. London Telegraph

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #18577]

“Whom can we trust now?”

The Washington Post asked that question last month after the death of Walter Cronkite, once known as the most trusted man in America.

For many years, the CBS news anchor was a soothing, familiar presence in living rooms across America, and as the Post says, “He could have talked us into almost anything, if he wanted to.”

Well, he and I sparred off over what I saw as biased reporting. I even once went over his head to his boss, William Paley. But even so, Walter was always a gentleman.

But times have changed. Where there was once a single fatherly figure reading us the news every evening, now there’s a plethora of voices coming at us from the broadcast networks, the cable networks, the Internet — more sources than we could have dreamed of back in the ‘60s and ‘70s. There aren’t many public figures left who can unite the country the way that Cronkite once did.

When the Washington Post asked a group of distinguished figures from various fields whom they trust, the answers were all over the map. Oprah Winfrey’s name came up quite a few times, as did President Obama’s. Agenda-driven journalists like Bill Moyers and Barbara Walters were cited, and so was comedian Jon Stewart, who isn’t really a news anchor but plays one on TV. Even Google got mentioned.

The only religious leaders named were the Dalai Lama, prosperity-gospel advocate Joel Osteen, and Gene Robinson, known for being the first openly gay Episcopal bishop.

Not only are we divided over whom to trust, but we don’t trust in quite the same way anymore. We’ve seen too many government officials, religious leaders, and even news anchors themselves (like Dan Rather) brought down by scandal.

Our trust has been abused, betrayed, and broken time and again. Just this summer, we’ve seen more than one political official go down over a breach of trust with his family and with his constituents. We’ve become so used to the process that nowadays, a lot of people simply roll their eyes over the latest scandal and say, “There goes another one.”

Maybe our whole concept of trust has changed. We used to trust a man whom we thought of as objective, although we now know that wasn’t always true. Yes, even Walter Cronkite made mistakes, as I well know. As the Post says, “His legacy is a paradox: We trusted him to teach us to trust less.”

Now, it seems like we’ll trust anyone just so long as they’ll tell us what we want to hear. And if they fall, we might be upset with them for a time, but then, disillusioned as we might feel, we’ll just go on looking for the next figure who will tell us what we want to hear. We never seem to learn.

It seems to me that this is a twisted reflection of the nature that God has placed in us. The human heart was designed to trust — but our ultimate trust was never supposed to be in our fellow human beings. Certainly Scripture teaches us that all humans are fallen.

So whom can we trust now? Ultimately, there is only one answer — the same answer that has always been. The sad thing is that in our culture today, the one Source of total trustworthiness has been chased from public life — even mocked and scorned.

And without access to Him, people will continue to ask the right question — whom can we trust? — but will continue to look in all the wrong places.

________

Copyright (c) 2009 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

In an 1803 sermon delivered at Kettering, England, British Baptist theologian Andrew Fuller preached from Jeremiah 29:7 on the subject of “Christian Patriotism” (The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, reprint, Sprinkle Publications [1988], pp. 202-209). Fuller may be better known as the theologian who preached the ordination sermon for William Carey, often called the “father of the modern missions movement.” He also heavily influenced Charles Haddon Spurgeon, perhaps the greatest expositor of Scripture to embrace the Baptist name.

Fuller was known for a deep, personal piety, an avid love and hunger for the Word of God, and as a man who sought to integrate the totality of scriptural truth into his exposition of each individual passage. The text from which he developed this particular sermon was addressed by Jeremiah to his fellow countrymen living in exile. It states, “Seek the welfare of the city I have deported you to. Pray to the LORD on its behalf, for when it has prosperity, you will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:7).

It is no secret that our nation is deeply divided around many different issues. It is unfortunate that many who name the Name which is above every Name use the same set of rhetorical strategies to influence public debate as those who do not know the Christ who transforms. The routine rancorous rhetoric of some professing believers, even some preachers of the Baptist persuasion, continually undermines the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. The virulent anger manifested in some protests during debate of public policy is often couched in “religious” terms and slogans. This causes the opponents of the Cross to have a distorted view of what redemption actually means and does in the lives of ransomed sinners.

Fuller lived in a day of much wickedness in his own nation. He urged his fellow Baptists to “seek the peace of the city” -- not merely as “an exemption from wars and insurrections,” but to seek the prosperity of the country in general. He cried out, “O my country, I will lament thy faults! Yet, with all thy faults I will seek thy good.”

His sermon was developed around two main ideas. In the first part of his sermon, he “inquired” into the “duty of religious people towards their country,” referencing the opening sentence of his biblical text: “Seek the welfare of the city I have deported you to.” Among the duties he listed, he gave prominent attention to the rhetoric Christians employ in matters of public debate.

In a particularly noteworthy paragraph, Fuller preached, “Whoever deals in inflammatory speeches, or in any manner sows the seeds of discontent and disaffection, we shall not. Whoever labours to depreciate its governors, supreme or subordinate, in a manner tending to bring government itself into contempt, we shall not. Even in cases wherein we may be compelled to disapprove of measures, we shall either be silent, or express our disapprobation with respect and with regret.”

He continued, “A dutiful son may see a fault in a father; but he will not take pleasure in exposing him. He that can employ his wit in degrading magistrates is not their friend, but their enemy; and he that is an enemy to magistrates is not far from being an enemy to magistracy, and, of course, to his country. A good many may be aggrieved; and being so, may complain. Paul did so at Philippi. But the character of a complainer belongs only to those who walk after their own lusts.”

Later, Fuller noted, “It becomes Christians to bear positive good-will to their country, and to its government, considered as government, irrespective of the political party which may have the ascendancy. We may have our preferences, and that without blame; but they ought never to prevent a cheerful obedience to the laws, a respectful demeanour towards those who frame and those who execute them, or a ready co-operation in every measure which the being or well-being of the nation may require.”

In language reflective of our own day, Fuller commented, “The civil power, whatever political party is uppermost, while it maintains the great ends of government, ought, at all times, to be able to reckon upon religious people as its cordial friends; and if such we be, we shall be willing, in times of difficulty, to sacrifice personal interest to public good; shall contribute of our substance without murmuring; and, in cases of imminent danger, shall be willing to expose even our own lives in its defense.”

In the second division of the sermon, which, in length, is little more than a conclusion, Fuller addressed the “motive by which these duties are enforced,” citing the concluding clause of the verse, “for when it has prosperity, you will prosper.”

Fuller eloquently illustrated this truth, “Let not the poorest man say, I have nothing to lose. Yes, if men of opulence lose their property, you will lose your employment. You have also a cottage, and perhaps a wife and family, with whom, amidst all your hardships, you live in love; and would it be nothing to you to see your wife and daughters abused, and you yourself unable to protect them, or even to remonstrate, but at the hazard of being thrust through with a bayonet? If no other considerations will induce us to protect our county, and pray to the Lord for it, our own individual and domestic comfort might suffice.”

One can easily draw the spiritual parallel between Jeremiah’s prophetic word in this text and Paul’s exhortation in 1 Timothy 2:1-4, “First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all those who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

In both passages, we are commanded to pray for and seek the “peace of the city.” In both, our motivation is that, as the city prospers, so shall we. Paul adds an evangelistic motivation as well -- our well-pleasing acts will be evangelistically attractive to the lost, and some will be saved.

In a similar vein, Johnny Hunt, the president of the Southern Baptists, released a statement on “civility in public discourse” in October 2009 (see www.sbc.net/PresidentsPage/JohnnyHunt/PressRelease-10-17-09Hunt.asp). Referencing the Civility Project, brainchild of conservative commentator Mark DeMoss, Hunt called on Southern Baptists to “join with me in showing restraint in our public and private speech.” Citing the “coarseness of our culture and the teaching of our Savior,” he said, “I also urge each of us to communicate our concerns with anyone we believe has crossed the line into mean-spirited attacks. We must never underestimate the power and influence of one voice.”

In his article, Hunt also drew attention to the counsel the Apostle Paul gave to the church at Colosse, “Your speech should always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you should answer each person” (Colossians 4:6).

Hunt closed his article, “When we exercise civility in our public and private rhetoric, we bring glory to our Lord, enhance our credibility as men and women whose lives have been transformed by God’s grace, and create opportunities to share the life-changing Gospel of Jesus Christ with our lost and dying world.”

Civility in public discourse is not something we can legislate. It flows (super)naturally out of one’s innermost being. Jesus taught his followers, “A good man produces good out of the good storeroom of his heart. An evil man produces evil out of the evil storeroom, for his mouth speaks from the overflow of the heart” (Luke 6:46).

Hear again Fuller’s challenge to the people of his parish, “Whoever deals in inflammatory speeches, or in any manner sows the seeds of discontent and disaffection, we shall not. Whoever labours to depreciate its governors, supreme or subordinate, in a manner tending to bring government itself into contempt, we shall not. Even in cases wherein we may be compelled to disapprove of measures,” let us clearly “express our disapprobation with respect and with regret.”

As we embrace this biblical ideal, may our demeanor in the public arena -- our behavior and our words -- be the fragrance of life, the life-giving aroma of obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ. May the light that shines in us radiate out from us so that others will be drawn to faith in Jesus Christ our Lord. That’s my stand. Is it yours?

________

Roger S. Oldham is vice president for convention relations for the Southern Baptist Executive Committee.

The space shuttle Discovery was grounded recently -- not by technical difficulties or lack of government funding, but by woodpeckers. Yellow-shafted flicker woodpeckers found the insulating foam on the shuttle's external fuel tank irresistible material for pecking.

The foam is critical to the shuttle's performance. Without it, ice forms on the tank when it's filled with the super-cold fuel, ice that can break free during liftoff and damage the giant spacecraft. The shuttle was grounded until the damage was repaired.

Marriages are frequently damaged not by big things -- infidelity or abuse or abandonment -- but by the little things. Criticism, lack of respect, and taking each other for granted peck away at the relationship and keep us from reaching the heights.

Sermon for sanctuary dedication.

1. Weighing the expense of our sanctuary.

2. Why spend money on a church:

a. Use of money shows our priorities.

1. Contrast churches with sports stadiums.

b. Churches honor God, should cost us something.

3. Why churches can be lavish.

a. Temple was a work of art.

b. Gives us a glimpse of heaven.

c. Shows God's beauty and order. (contrast modern art)

d. Can be a witness for God.

e. Can be a place where we encounter God.

4. Our homes reflect our inner selves.

5. Our sanctuary reflects the congregation.

a. Respect for God's house.

b. Behavior in God's house.

6. God requires a special kind of worker.

a. Huram, Bezalel

7. A church building in God's perspective.

“Whom can we trust now?”

The Washington Post asked that question last month after the death of Walter Cronkite, once known as the most trusted man in America.

For many years, the CBS news anchor was a soothing, familiar presence in living rooms across America, and as the Post says, “He could have talked us into almost anything, if he wanted to.”

Well, he and I sparred off over what I saw as biased reporting. I even once went over his head to his boss, William Paley. But even so, Walter was always a gentleman.

But times have changed. Where there was once a single fatherly figure reading us the news every evening, now there’s a plethora of voices coming at us from the broadcast networks, the cable networks, the Internet — more sources than we could have dreamed of back in the ‘60s and ‘70s. There aren’t many public figures left who can unite the country the way that Cronkite once did.

When the Washington Post asked a group of distinguished figures from various fields whom they trust, the answers were all over the map. Oprah Winfrey’s name came up quite a few times, as did President Obama’s. Agenda-driven journalists like Bill Moyers and Barbara Walters were cited, and so was comedian Jon Stewart, who isn’t really a news anchor but plays one on TV. Even Google got mentioned.

The only religious leaders named were the Dalai Lama, prosperity-gospel advocate Joel Osteen, and Gene Robinson, known for being the first openly gay Episcopal bishop.

Not only are we divided over whom to trust, but we don’t trust in quite the same way anymore. We’ve seen too many government officials, religious leaders, and even news anchors themselves (like Dan Rather) brought down by scandal.

Our trust has been abused, betrayed, and broken time and again. Just this summer, we’ve seen more than one political official go down over a breach of trust with his family and with his constituents. We’ve become so used to the process that nowadays, a lot of people simply roll their eyes over the latest scandal and say, “There goes another one.”

Maybe our whole concept of trust has changed. We used to trust a man whom we thought of as objective, although we now know that wasn’t always true. Yes, even Walter Cronkite made mistakes, as I well know. As the Post says, “His legacy is a paradox: We trusted him to teach us to trust less.”

Now, it seems like we’ll trust anyone just so long as they’ll tell us what we want to hear. And if they fall, we might be upset with them for a time, but then, disillusioned as we might feel, we’ll just go on looking for the next figure who will tell us what we want to hear. We never seem to learn.

It seems to me that this is a twisted reflection of the nature that God has placed in us. The human heart was designed to trust — but our ultimate trust was never supposed to be in our fellow human beings. Certainly Scripture teaches us that all humans are fallen.

So whom can we trust now? Ultimately, there is only one answer — the same answer that has always been. The sad thing is that in our culture today, the one Source of total trustworthiness has been chased from public life — even mocked and scorned.

And without access to Him, people will continue to ask the right question — whom can we trust? — but will continue to look in all the wrong places.

________

Copyright (c) 2009 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

“Whom can we trust now?”

The Washington Post asked that question last month after the death of Walter Cronkite, once known as the most trusted man in America.

For many years, the CBS news anchor was a soothing, familiar presence in living rooms across America, and as the Post says, “He could have talked us into almost anything, if he wanted to.”

Well, he and I sparred off over what I saw as biased reporting. I even once went over his head to his boss, William Paley. But even so, Walter was always a gentleman.

But times have changed. Where there was once a single fatherly figure reading us the news every evening, now there’s a plethora of voices coming at us from the broadcast networks, the cable networks, the Internet — more sources than we could have dreamed of back in the ‘60s and ‘70s. There aren’t many public figures left who can unite the country the way that Cronkite once did.

When the Washington Post asked a group of distinguished figures from various fields whom they trust, the answers were all over the map. Oprah Winfrey’s name came up quite a few times, as did President Obama’s. Agenda-driven journalists like Bill Moyers and Barbara Walters were cited, and so was comedian Jon Stewart, who isn’t really a news anchor but plays one on TV. Even Google got mentioned.

The only religious leaders named were the Dalai Lama, prosperity-gospel advocate Joel Osteen, and Gene Robinson, known for being the first openly gay Episcopal bishop.

Not only are we divided over whom to trust, but we don’t trust in quite the same way anymore. We’ve seen too many government officials, religious leaders, and even news anchors themselves (like Dan Rather) brought down by scandal.

Our trust has been abused, betrayed, and broken time and again. Just this summer, we’ve seen more than one political official go down over a breach of trust with his family and with his constituents. We’ve become so used to the process that nowadays, a lot of people simply roll their eyes over the latest scandal and say, “There goes another one.”

Maybe our whole concept of trust has changed. We used to trust a man whom we thought of as objective, although we now know that wasn’t always true. Yes, even Walter Cronkite made mistakes, as I well know. As the Post says, “His legacy is a paradox: We trusted him to teach us to trust less.”

Now, it seems like we’ll trust anyone just so long as they’ll tell us what we want to hear. And if they fall, we might be upset with them for a time, but then, disillusioned as we might feel, we’ll just go on looking for the next figure who will tell us what we want to hear. We never seem to learn.

It seems to me that this is a twisted reflection of the nature that God has placed in us. The human heart was designed to trust — but our ultimate trust was never supposed to be in our fellow human beings. Certainly Scripture teaches us that all humans are fallen.

So whom can we trust now? Ultimately, there is only one answer — the same answer that has always been. The sad thing is that in our culture today, the one Source of total trustworthiness has been chased from public life — even mocked and scorned.

And without access to Him, people will continue to ask the right question — whom can we trust? — but will continue to look in all the wrong places.

________

Copyright (c) 2009 Prison Fellowship Ministries. Reprinted with permission. "BreakPoint with Chuck Colson" is a radio ministry of Prison Fellowship Ministries.

In an 1803 sermon delivered at Kettering, England, British Baptist theologian Andrew Fuller preached from Jeremiah 29:7 on the subject of “Christian Patriotism” (The Complete Works of Andrew Fuller, reprint, Sprinkle Publications [1988], pp. 202-209). Fuller may be better known as the theologian who preached the ordination sermon for William Carey, often called the “father of the modern missions movement.” He also heavily influenced Charles Haddon Spurgeon, perhaps the greatest expositor of Scripture to embrace the Baptist name.

Fuller was known for a deep, personal piety, an avid love and hunger for the Word of God, and as a man who sought to integrate the totality of scriptural truth into his exposition of each individual passage. The text from which he developed this particular sermon was addressed by Jeremiah to his fellow countrymen living in exile. It states, “Seek the welfare of the city I have deported you to. Pray to the LORD on its behalf, for when it has prosperity, you will prosper” (Jeremiah 29:7).

It is no secret that our nation is deeply divided around many different issues. It is unfortunate that many who name the Name which is above every Name use the same set of rhetorical strategies to influence public debate as those who do not know the Christ who transforms. The routine rancorous rhetoric of some professing believers, even some preachers of the Baptist persuasion, continually undermines the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. The virulent anger manifested in some protests during debate of public policy is often couched in “religious” terms and slogans. This causes the opponents of the Cross to have a distorted view of what redemption actually means and does in the lives of ransomed sinners.

Fuller lived in a day of much wickedness in his own nation. He urged his fellow Baptists to “seek the peace of the city” -- not merely as “an exemption from wars and insurrections,” but to seek the prosperity of the country in general. He cried out, “O my country, I will lament thy faults! Yet, with all thy faults I will seek thy good.”

His sermon was developed around two main ideas. In the first part of his sermon, he “inquired” into the “duty of religious people towards their country,” referencing the opening sentence of his biblical text: “Seek the welfare of the city I have deported you to.” Among the duties he listed, he gave prominent attention to the rhetoric Christians employ in matters of public debate.

In a particularly noteworthy paragraph, Fuller preached, “Whoever deals in inflammatory speeches, or in any manner sows the seeds of discontent and disaffection, we shall not. Whoever labours to depreciate its governors, supreme or subordinate, in a manner tending to bring government itself into contempt, we shall not. Even in cases wherein we may be compelled to disapprove of measures, we shall either be silent, or express our disapprobation with respect and with regret.”

He continued, “A dutiful son may see a fault in a father; but he will not take pleasure in exposing him. He that can employ his wit in degrading magistrates is not their friend, but their enemy; and he that is an enemy to magistrates is not far from being an enemy to magistracy, and, of course, to his country. A good many may be aggrieved; and being so, may complain. Paul did so at Philippi. But the character of a complainer belongs only to those who walk after their own lusts.”

Later, Fuller noted, “It becomes Christians to bear positive good-will to their country, and to its government, considered as government, irrespective of the political party which may have the ascendancy. We may have our preferences, and that without blame; but they ought never to prevent a cheerful obedience to the laws, a respectful demeanour towards those who frame and those who execute them, or a ready co-operation in every measure which the being or well-being of the nation may require.”

In language reflective of our own day, Fuller commented, “The civil power, whatever political party is uppermost, while it maintains the great ends of government, ought, at all times, to be able to reckon upon religious people as its cordial friends; and if such we be, we shall be willing, in times of difficulty, to sacrifice personal interest to public good; shall contribute of our substance without murmuring; and, in cases of imminent danger, shall be willing to expose even our own lives in its defense.”

In the second division of the sermon, which, in length, is little more than a conclusion, Fuller addressed the “motive by which these duties are enforced,” citing the concluding clause of the verse, “for when it has prosperity, you will prosper.”

Fuller eloquently illustrated this truth, “Let not the poorest man say, I have nothing to lose. Yes, if men of opulence lose their property, you will lose your employment. You have also a cottage, and perhaps a wife and family, with whom, amidst all your hardships, you live in love; and would it be nothing to you to see your wife and daughters abused, and you yourself unable to protect them, or even to remonstrate, but at the hazard of being thrust through with a bayonet? If no other considerations will induce us to protect our county, and pray to the Lord for it, our own individual and domestic comfort might suffice.”

One can easily draw the spiritual parallel between Jeremiah’s prophetic word in this text and Paul’s exhortation in 1 Timothy 2:1-4, “First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for kings and all those who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

In both passages, we are commanded to pray for and seek the “peace of the city.” In both, our motivation is that, as the city prospers, so shall we. Paul adds an evangelistic motivation as well -- our well-pleasing acts will be evangelistically attractive to the lost, and some will be saved.

In a similar vein, Johnny Hunt, the president of the Southern Baptists, released a statement on “civility in public discourse” in October 2009 (see www.sbc.net/PresidentsPage/JohnnyHunt/PressRelease-10-17-09Hunt.asp). Referencing the Civility Project, brainchild of conservative commentator Mark DeMoss, Hunt called on Southern Baptists to “join with me in showing restraint in our public and private speech.” Citing the “coarseness of our culture and the teaching of our Savior,” he said, “I also urge each of us to communicate our concerns with anyone we believe has crossed the line into mean-spirited attacks. We must never underestimate the power and influence of one voice.”

In his article, Hunt also drew attention to the counsel the Apostle Paul gave to the church at Colosse, “Your speech should always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you should answer each person” (Colossians 4:6).

Hunt closed his article, “When we exercise civility in our public and private rhetoric, we bring glory to our Lord, enhance our credibility as men and women whose lives have been transformed by God’s grace, and create opportunities to share the life-changing Gospel of Jesus Christ with our lost and dying world.”

Civility in public discourse is not something we can legislate. It flows (super)naturally out of one’s innermost being. Jesus taught his followers, “A good man produces good out of the good storeroom of his heart. An evil man produces evil out of the evil storeroom, for his mouth speaks from the overflow of the heart” (Luke 6:46).

Hear again Fuller’s challenge to the people of his parish, “Whoever deals in inflammatory speeches, or in any manner sows the seeds of discontent and disaffection, we shall not. Whoever labours to depreciate its governors, supreme or subordinate, in a manner tending to bring government itself into contempt, we shall not. Even in cases wherein we may be compelled to disapprove of measures,” let us clearly “express our disapprobation with respect and with regret.”

As we embrace this biblical ideal, may our demeanor in the public arena -- our behavior and our words -- be the fragrance of life, the life-giving aroma of obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ. May the light that shines in us radiate out from us so that others will be drawn to faith in Jesus Christ our Lord. That’s my stand. Is it yours?

________

Roger S. Oldham is vice president for convention relations for the Southern Baptist Executive Committee.