Call for Chapter Proposals

Working Title: Prescribing change for medical school pedagogy, assessment, accessibility and inclusion

Editor/Publisher: Michael S. Jeffress, lead editor of The Palgrave Handbook of Disability and Communication (2023) and editor of three volumes in Routledge’s Interdisciplinary Disability Studies Series. One or more co-editors may join the project. Will be published by an international academic press with options for open-access chapters and chapters will be subject to peer-review process.

Background/Rationale: As a disability studies scholar who is also a medical school counselor, I am troubled by the institutional barriers to accessibility within medical school and residency programs.  Students with disabilities are marginalized when it comes to medical school admissions and programs of study.  Those with hidden disabilities who do find a seat often fear bias and discrimination if they self-disclose. Those who do submit requests for “reasonable accommodations” may be surprised to discover an impersonal process and receive a terse rejection notice without any explanation beyond, “Your request for accommodation has been denied.”  Consequently, many highly capable students with disabilities, who could unquestionably perform the duties of any number of careers in medicine with only a few, if any, adjustments to how, when, or where they do the work—none of which would compromise any aspect of patient care or the quality of work performed, instead are denied the opportunity to pursue their dream career, and society will never benefit from the meaningful contributions to the field of medicine these individuals would have made.

The institutional barriers to accessibility that need to be challenged include a pedagogy that relies heavily on long days of lectures often tied to stringent mandatory lecture attendance policies, the rigid adherence to multiple-choice questions on standardized written exams as the primary form of assessment, and a paradigm for medical school that requires all students to pass all the same technical standards. These barriers are reinforced by a discriminatory mindset that easily grows and festers among people who find themselves part of an exclusive club and alumni and members of elite academic institutions and professional associations in which tradition is sacrosanct and economic incentives abound for maintaining the status quo. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that medical schools in the U.S. have an abysmal acceptance rate of less than 6%, and those in Canada and Western Europe are not much better with rates less than 20%. This leads thousands of students annually to look to offshore, for-profit medical schools, and these schools have perhaps even less motivation to prioritize accessibility because they operate outside the purview of ADA.

At a time when the ideals of  “diversity, equity, and inclusion” have become pervasive in higher education, when pedagogical research and best practices are calling for more engagement with active learning and multimodal forms of assessment, and when Universal Design for Learning and other efforts to create accessibility and inclusivity in the classroom are being widely promoted and shown to benefit all students—not just those with disabilities, it is time to call for a paradigm change in medical school education and assessment.

Targeted Proposals: The volume will be multi-/interdisciplinary and embrace varied theoretical and methodological approaches, so contributors from any relevant academic discipline are welcome. Targeted approaches include, but are not limited to:

• Theoretical essays to address historical, philosophical, and/or ethical matters.
• Autoethnographic essays that draw upon relevant personal experience as a medical student and/or healthcare professional.
• Rhetorical approaches to critique relevant texts or other rhetorical constructs surrounding medical school pedagogy and assessment.
• Original research involving pedagogy, assessment of adult STEM learners, medical students and/or healthcare professionals,
• Original research assessing attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors of current medical students or practitioners surrounding issues of accessibility, pedagogy and assessment or even those of the general public related to seeking care from disabled healthcare professionals.
• Meta-analysis of relevant literature

Submissions are especially encouraged from scholars in medical sciences, pre-med STEM fields, public health, disability studies, and education, as well as from current medical students, residents, and faculty and those employed as healthcare professionals or medical researchers. Highly desired are submissions from any of the above who either navigated medical school with a disability or became disabled while practicing in the medical field.

Submission guidelines: Please submit the following items by e-mail to Dr. Jeffress by  February 1, 2024 at [email protected] with the subject line “Medical School Book CFP”:

• Name, highest degree earned, and institutional affiliation(s) of author(s) (Info. will not be shared with reviewers).
• Working title and 150-200 word abstract sufficient to allow reviewers to understand the main focus of the proposed chapter.
• If you are proposing a chapter to discuss findings of original research, please indicate whether research is already completed. If so, please give basic details of the research (i.e., when, where, and how conducted, sample size, etc.,); if not, then provide plans for the same. Proof of IRB approval will be required.
• Contributors who submit proposals deemed strong and a good fit will be invited to submit a full draft chapter. Invitations to submit drafts will be sent by April 1, 2024, and shall be due by June 1, 2024. Final decision to accept/reject for publication will be based on anonymous peer-review of full chapter drafts to be completed by Sept, 1, 2024.  Final drafts will then be due by November 1, 2024.
  

On behalf of my fellow editors Joy M. Cypher, Jim Ferris, and Julie-Ann Scott-Pollock, I am happy to announce that the Palgrave Handbook of Disability and Communication is officially in press. It is scheduled to be published in November 2022.  Below is a sneak peak:
(ID: A sphere that will be on the book cover. It is white and titled on its axis like the globe with words printed in various directions covering it. The word "Disability" is in ALL-CAPS and blue font and features prominently across the center. The rest of the words are in lowercase and either black or grey, and they all relate to disability justice. Among those clearly legible are:  solidarity, assistance, independence, support, and autonomy)
 
Table of Contents

1. Introduction by Michael S. Jeffress, Joy M. Cypher, Jim Ferris, and Julie-Ann Scott.

SECTION I: LANGUAGE AND DISABILITY

1. Language Matters: Disability and the Power of Taboo Words by Joanne Arciuli, and Tom Shakespeare.
2. Communicating by Accident: Dysfluency, the Non-Essential, and the Catastrophe by Joshua St. Pierre.
3. A Framework for Cross-Neurotype Communication Competence by Emily Stones.
4. Microaggressions Toward People with Disabilities by Danielle Sparrow, Erin Sahlstein Parcell, Emily R. Gerlikovski, and Dathan N. Simpson.
5. “When We Say That It’s Private, a Lot of People Assume It Just Doesn’t Exist”: Communication, Disability, and Sexuality by Ameera Ali.

SECTION II: IDENTITY AND INTERSECTIONALITIES

1. Ableism and Intersectionality: A Rhetorical Perspective by James L. Cherney.
2. Performing FitCrip in Daily Life: A Critical Autoethnographic Reflection on Embodied Vulnerability by Julie-Ann Scott-Pollock
3. On a Scale of Zero to Ten: A Lyric Autoethnography of Chronic Pain and Illness by Shelby Swafford.
4. On Being a Diabetic Black Male: An Autoethnography of Race, Gender, and Invisible Disability by Antonio L. Spikes
5. Physical Disability in Romantic Relationships: Exploring How Women with Visible Physical Disabilities Navigate Conversations about Their Identity with Male Romantic Partners by Lisa J. DeWeert and Aimee E. Miller-Ott.
6. Disposable Masks, Disposable Lives: Aggrievement Politics and the Weaponization of Disabled Identity by Brian Grewe and Craig R. Weathers.

SECTION III. CULTURAL ARTIFACTS & DISABILITY

1. Disability Talk with Machines: Reflections on Chatbots, AI & Other Machines Whereby “We” Communicate about Disability by Gerard Goggin, Andrew Prahl, and ZHAUNG Kuansong Victor.
2. Thinking Inclusiveness, Diversity and Cultural Equity Based on Game Mechanics and Accessibility Features in Mainstream Video Games by Alexandra Dumont and Maude Bonenfant.
3. Posthuman Critical Theory and the Body on Sports Night by Peter J. Gloviczki.
4. Never Go Full Potato: Discourses of Cognitivism, Ableism and Sexism in “I Can Count to Potato” Memes by Jeff Preston.
5. #DisabilityTikTok by Jordan Foster, and David Pettinicchio.

SECTION IV: INSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTS AND CONSTRAINTS

1. Communicating Vulnerability in Disasters: Media Coverage of People with Disabilities in Hurricane Katrina and the Tōhoku Earthquake and Tsunami by Liz Shek-Noble.
2. “Kept in a Padded Black Cell in Case He Accidently Said ‘Piccaninny’”: Disability as Humor in Brexit Rhetoric by Emmeline Burdett.
3. "Oh, We Are Going to Have a Problem!": Service Dog Access Microaggressions, Hyper-Invisibility, and Advocacy Fatigue by Robert L. Ballard,  Sarah J. Ballard, and Lauren E. Chu.
4. “The Fuzzy Mouse”: Unresolved Reflections on Podcasting, Public Pedagogy, and Intellectual Disability by Chelsea Temple Jones, Kimberlee Collins, Anne Zbitnew, and Jennifer Chatsick.
5. Organizational Communication and Disability: Improvising Sense-Sharing by Amin Makkawy, and Shane T. Moreman.

SECTION V: ADVOCACY, POLICY, AND ACTION

1. Overlooked and Undercounted: Communication and Police Brutality against People with Disabilities by Deion S. Hawkins.
2. Critical Disability Studies in Technical Communication: A 20-Year History and the Future of Accessibility by Leah Heilig.
3. Communication Infrastructures: Examining How Community Storytelling Facilitates or Constrains Communication Related to Medicaid Waivers for Children by Whittney H. Darnell.
4. “Governing Deaf Children and Their Parents through (and into) Language by Tracey Edelist.
5. #ImMentallyIllAndIDontKill: A Case Study of Grassroots Health Advocacy Messages on Twitter Following the Dayton and El Paso Shootings by Sarah Smith-Frigerio.

Call for Proposals
 
Book Title: The Disability Studies Research Methods Handbook
Publisher: TBD
Editor: Michael S. Jeffress, PhD, Associate Professor, Tennessee State University, [email protected]; 615-963-7952
Deadline: 12/30/2020
DEADLINE EXTENDED to 1/29/2021 for Quantitative Methods proposals!
 
This CFP seeks proposals for chapters for a project that will showcase original research, meta-analysis studies, and theoretical essays from both senior and junior scholars in interdisciplinary fields related to disability studies. The purpose is to provide chapters that discuss methods for conducting disability studies research and provide exemplar studies that show the different methods in practice. Each exemplar study chapter will be 6,000 words and will follow a standard format of Introduction, Literature Review, Methodology, Findings & Discussion, and Conclusion and will include a list of five discussion questions and three suggested activities. The tentative book outline is:
 
Introductory chapters: General introduction chapter, a chapter to provide a brief history of disability studies as a field of study, and a chapter on the ethics of doing disability studies research.
 
Section I:  Qualitative Methods. An introduction chapter on doing qualitative disability studies research followed by up to 10 case study chapters that provide exemplars of original research employing different types of qualitative methods, including: grounded theory, ethnography, phenomenology, auto-ethnography, conversational analysis, interviewing, focus groups, observational, photovoice, etc.
 
Section 2: Quantitative Methods: An introduction chapter on doing quantitative disability studies research followed by up to 10 case study chapters that provide exemplars of original research employing different quantitative methods, including: survey research, descriptive, correlational, content analysis, and experimental research.
 
Section 3: Historical-Critical Methods: An introduction chapter on doing historical-critical disability studies research followed by up to 10 case study chapters that provide exemplars of original research employing different historical-critical methods, including: textual criticism (semiotic analysis and rhetorical analysis), ideological criticism (Marxist, post-colonial, feminist, queer, etc.), discourse analysis and historical analysis.

Section 4: Mixed Methods. An introduction chapter on doing mixed-methods disability studies research followed by up to 10 case study chapters that provide exemplars of original research employing mixed methods. 
 
Project timeline:
 
12/30/2020 - Review of proposals begins
1/30/2021 - Invite contributors of selected proposals to submit full chapters for review
5/30/2021 - Deadline for first drafts
7/30/2021 - Feedback returned
10/30/2021 - Final drafts due
12/30/2021-Manuscript delivered
 
Submission instructions: To submit a proposal, please send an e-mail to [email protected] with an attached Word document that includes a working chapter title, 150-250 word abstract, and a brief bio that provides your degree status and current title and institutional affiliation. In addition, please answer the following questions: 1) Are you submitting a proposal for an introduction to conducting research chapter or an exemplar study chapter? and 2) What method(s) and theoretical framework(s) does your proposal utilize?

Deadline:         November 30, 2020
DEADLINE EXTENDED to 1/29/2021 for proposals that engage intersectionalities of disability with race, gender and/or sexual orientation
Book project: The Palgrave Handbook of Communication and Disability
Publisher:        Palgrave-MacMillan
Editors:            Michael S. Jeffress, PhD, Tennessee State University
                           Jim Ferris, PhD, University of Toledo
                           Joy M. Cypher, PhD, Rowan University
                           Julie-Ann Scott-Pollock, PhD, University of North Carolina Wilmington
 
We welcome proposals for original scholarship, meta-analysis studies, and theoretical essays from communication scholars who approach the topic of communication from a disability studies frame.  We desire a wide variety of methodological approaches and diverse theoretical frameworks. We invite proposals from any sub-discipline of communication studies; however, we are not seeking proposals related to representation in film, television, or print media.  We encourage proposals that explore the insectionalities of disability with race, gender, and sexual orientation, as well as the voice of disability in social movements related to social and environmental justice.

Project timeline:
 
11/30/2020 - Review of proposals begins
1/1/2021 - Invite contributors of selected proposals to submit full chapters for review
4/30/2021 - Deadline for first drafts
6/30/2021 - Feedback returned
9/30/2021 - Final drafts due
11/30/2021-Manuscript delivered

To submit, please send to [email protected] with “Handbook CFP” in the subject line a Word document containing your working title, abstract of no more than 200 words, and a brief bio that lists the author(s) highest earned degree and institutional affiliation.

I have delivered the manuscript for International Perspectives on Teaching with Disability: Overcoming Obstacles and Enriching Lives to Routledge. It will most likely be out in May or June and includes chapters written by some great scholars from Africa, Canada, the Caribbean, England, Israel, and the US. Here is a sneak peak at the Table of Contents:
Editor’s Preface & Introduction by Michael S. Jeffress
Foreword by Mark D. Sherry
Section I: Teaching with Physical Disability
Chapter 1: Almost Passing: Using Disability Disclosure to Recalibrate Able-Bodied Bias in the Classroom by Julie-Ann Scott and Kelly P. Herold
Chapter 2: Teaching on Wheels: Bringing a disability perspective into the classroom by April Coughlin
Chapter 3: How Crip is Too Crip?: Re-Imagining the Presence of Disabled Professors in the Academy by Nadine LeGier and Michelle Owen
Chapter 4: My Class, My Disability, My Struggle by Tafadzwa Rugoho and Michael S. Jeffress
Chapter 5: Teaching Through a Traumatic Brain Injury by Sarah E. Schoper
Section II: Teaching with Sensory Disability
Chapter 6: “The Instructor is Partially Def”: DHH Professing in Higher Education by Lisa M. Dembouski
Chapter 7: A Dialogue about Disability Praxis Between a Deaf Law Professor and a Hearing Education Professor by Michael A. Schwartz and Brent C. Elder
Chapter 8: “Is That Really Our Teacher professor person?” Working from the Boundaries: Enabling from Afar by Amin Makkawy
Chapter 9: My Tech Writing Teacher Has Low Vision: Teachable Moments for Accessibility and Diversity in the Technical Communication Classroom by Gia Alexander
Section III: Teaching with Hidden Disability
Chapter 10: To Share or Not to Share? Pedagogical Dilemmas of a Chronically-Ill Lecturer in Teaching with Invisible Disability by Adi Finkelstein
Chapter 11: Negotiations of In/Visible Disability in the Rhetoric Classroom by Rebecca Miner
Chapter 12: Method to Our Madness: Teaching and Learning Across Mental Disability by Aubry D. Threlkeld and Sarah Louise Pieplow
Chapter 13: Teaching with Dis/ability and Madness by Mark A. Castrodale
Chapter 14: The Work Around: How Teaching with Andragogical Practices Can Normalize Learning Disabilities in Education by Kimberly M. Cuny
Chapter 15: Teaching with Augmentative and Alternative Communication by Alyssa Hillary and Sam Harvey
Chapter 16: Being Exhibit A: Teaching AIDS and Music in the University Classroom by Paul Attinello
Section IV: Teaching with Disability: Engaging Students and Colleagues
Chapter 17: Disclosing Disability around the Coffee Stand: Strategies for Boosting Collegiality in Academe by Pauline T. Newton, Michael S. Jeffress, and Amanda K. Thomas
Chapter 18: The Impact of having an instructor with a disability on student attitudes toward people with disabilities by William J. Brown and Michael S. Jeffress

Power soccer, also known as powerchair football, is an adapted team sport designed for motorized wheelchair users. It is co-ed and open to participants ages 5 and up. It originated in France in the 1970s, and today it is played competitively and recreationally in about 30 countries around the world. The sport has an international governing body, Federation Internationale de Powerchair Football (FIPFA), which sponsored a World Cup in Tokyo, Japan in 2007, Paris, France in 2011, and the third took place in Kissimmee, Florida, USA, July 5-9, 2017 (http://fipfaworldcup.org/).

Interviews with power soccer athletes demonstrate that they perceive many positive benefits from their participation in the sport. I reported on this at a national conference in 2008 and again in 2014. Here is a brief overview of the positive effects power soccer athletes experience.

Physical Benefits

People who play power soccer report similar effects related to physical exercise and athletic competition. Although they are in self-propelled chairs, they still exert physical energy. They maximize whatever mobility capabilities they have in order to position themselves and operate their chairs during play. They may sweat and feel an increased heart rate, adrenaline rushes, and customary soreness and exhaustion associated with physical exercise. 

Photo credit: Kim Salewski Almeida

Emotional Benefits

People who play power soccer feel better about themselves. They become happier as a result of finding a sport they can play. They have reduced boredom and depression by having a fun activity to do. They experience a refreshing sense of belonging by developing friends in the sport. They gain a sense of ‘normalcy’ by participating in the shared cultural value of sport. They enjoy opportunities to be affirmed as members of a team working on common goals.

Photo credit: Chris Mulholland

Psychological Benefits

People who play power soccer begin to think about themselves and their futures differently. They begin to view themselves as athletes. They gain self-efficacy by learning how to play the sport and being able to do so with a large amount of independence. As they do things that in many cases they never believed they would (such as play in a sport, travel to tournaments, score their first goal, win their first game, etc.), they gain self-confidence and start to see more possibilities in life and set new personal goals for themselves.

Photo credit: Kim Salewski Almeida

Social Benefits

People who play power soccer overwhelmingly report greatly expanding their social networks through the sport. Although they may have previously been shy introverts, they make friends with teammates and athletes on other teams that they would have otherwise never met. For many it marks the first time that they interact with people “in the same boat” as they are. Not only this, but they also experience enhanced relationships with their non-disabled peers by having something in common through sport to discuss. Their participation in sport breaks stereotypes, creates curiosity, and sparks conversations and connections with people at school, work, and elsewhere. In addition, they establish networks of care, support, and mentorship that link them to beneficial information and resources and promote social capital and public advocacy.

Photo credit: United States Power Soccer Association

Knowing that this sport exists and offers the potential for many positive, life-changing benefits, why would you not want to get involved?  Here is how you can do it:

1. Share this blog post through your social media channels.
2. See if a team exists in your area that you can join as a team member or volunteer. Click here for a page  with information and links to international power soccer associations where you can search for teams in your area.
3. Host a power soccer clinic to start a team in your area. Several organizations work to spread the sport and will come with people and resources to demonstrate the sport and help establish a team. Contact USPSA or FIPFA for more information.
4. Make a financial donation. Power soccer is a developing sport without huge corporate sponsorships. Tournaments and events come with significant financial burdens and teams need patrons to help them defray costs for equipment and travel. Teams and athletes often have Gofundme campaigns and have other fundraising efforts throughout the year. You can get information at USPSA's or FIPFA's websites or do a simple Internet search to find a team or a player or a power soccer event to sponsor and make a difference with your dollars.
   

Thank you for reading my blog. Want to read more about the sport of power soccer and how it benefits those involved? Check out my book on the sport. In it, you will meet 34 power soccer athletes and learn what they have to say about what power soccer means to them. The book is available in hardcover, paperback and eBook. Click on the book image below to visit the product page on Amazon. You can purchase an author-signed copy at PowerSoccerShop.com.

Michael Jeffress (@CommprofessorMJ; facebook.com/authormichaeljeffress) has been involved in power soccer as an athlete’s parent, as a coach, and as a researcher since 2006. He is the author of Communication, Sport and Disability: The Case of Power Soccer, which tells the stories of 34 power soccer athletes and what power soccer means to them.

Now let’s talk about those summers off. What summers off? I work all summer long without pay. I have to do research and writing over the summer because of the tenure requirements, plus I have to research and do course prep for new classes I will be teaching in the fall.  The committees I serve on also continue to meet over the summer. Granted, I do not have to show up at an office or punch a clock, but I am still working throughout the summer, although I am not receiving a paycheck for it. But I still need a paycheck during the summer, so I teach at least two summer courses every year in order to supplement my income.
 
Yes, there are some college professors, albeit a very small minority, who may only have to teach one or two courses and earn a six-figure salary. I have never seen one in person, but I hear they do exist. But even these have a heavy burden of research and an expectation of publishing their research that can be very demanding.  And this research in university labs, almost completely funded by grants, is what often leads to innovations and amazing scientific breakthroughs. The value of a professor is not determined merely by course load. The easiest work I do is in the classroom. What I do in the classroom is, however, a relatively small part of my job as a college professor.

Despite all of this, believe it or not, I love teaching students. I love being a college professor, but it is not because of the pay or because it is an easy job. I love being a college professor because I believe in the value of higher education. I believe it is important help students develop the discipline, understandings and critical thinking skills that can hopefully lead to a more prosperous and civil society.  If that is an important goal for you as well, then thank a teacher, thank a college professor, and elect legislators who will defend higher education and restore its proper funding levels.

In the wake of a terrible tragedy such as the Orlando massacre of June 12th, people look for answers. They point fingers. They try to interpret and make sense of the events.  Presently, some people are focusing on the weapon used and what that means. Some are zoning in on the shooter's identity as a Muslim and the implications of that. Others are emphasizing the fact that it took place at a gay nightclub and what this means about the status of the LGBT community. This process brings out the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Because of the shooter's religious persuasion and the nature of the venue where it happened, radical Christian extremists are quick to offer their thoughts, and to me they are among the most reprehensible. They represent a serious either misunderstanding or disregard of the example of Jesus Christ. They are also deeply hypocritical to the extent that they do not realize that through their rhetoric they show themselves to be every bit as much misinformed, misguided, radicalized extremists of their religion as those within Islam are to whom they point their fingers.

Case in point are two examples currently trending on social media. The first is a Baptist pastor named Roger Jimenez, who said of the Orlando massacre, "The tragedy is that more of them didn’t die. The tragedy is — I’m kind of upset that [the shooter] didn’t finish the job!” (see: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/06/14/pastor-refuses-to-mourn-orlando-victims-the-tragedy-is-that-more-of-them-didnt-die/). Even if you believe that the victims were, as he called them, "Sodomites," who are doomed to hell if they do not repent, even if that is your view, does not the Bible state that the Lord "is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9), or has that verse been removed since I left ministry in 2008?  You know, sometimes I fancy that in the line to get into heaven, there will be a place to fill out a job application. After all, surely the principle of a person not eating if the person does not work will ring true throughout eternity. And I fancy that one of the jobs listed will be something like "Hell's Trap Door Operator." This will be the spot that as people who are doomed to hell pass, someone will have the job to pull the lever.  If they are true to their rhetoric, then people like Pastor Jimenez  would be eager to sign up for the job. But what will be unknown to all the applicants, is that some jobs, such as this one, are listed in order to screen out people who do not belong in heaven. Anyone who would desire such a job will not see heaven!

The other example is the perennial Christian gaffer, Pat Robertson. He weighed in on the massacre in Orlando by focusing on the shooter's connection to "radical Islam" and concludes, "The best thing to do is to sit on the sidelines and let them kill themselves" (see: http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/15/pat-robertson-orlando-shooting-comments/). I have no words to describe how unconscionable I find these remarks. I am sure Jesus would have said the same, right? He would have said, "Away from me prostitutes! You deserve your abusive pimps and deadly STDs! You may never touch me over here on the sidelines!" He would have said, "Gather up all the adulterous women--women only, mind you!--and give them all large rocks to stone themselves to death far away from the sidelines where we sit." He would have said, "Lepers be gone; you must go rot and die among yourselves while I stay safe on the sidelines!" I'm sure he would have said, "The best thing that could happen is for all these mentally ill people to kill themselves far, far away from the sidelines." No doubt he would have said, "All tax collectors and sinners, please just go ahead and do us all a favor and kill yourselves, and if you need weapons to do it, just ask."

A thousand times no! I believe if there is one verse that would sum up Christ's reaction both to the shooting and to the responses to it by Pastor Jiminez and Robertson, it would be found in John 11:35, "Jesus wept."

Jesus consistently rebuked the religious leaders who were more interested in political power and their sacred playhouses than serving God. The only times he warned of hell was when he addressed the Pharisees and Sadducees (religious and quasi-political leaders of first-century Israel). Jesus taught and modeled that it is impossible to say one loves God if one does not love people made in God's image. The true test of spirituality for Jesus was not tied to worship and ritual and the bumper sticker theology of today. It mattered not about outward appearances (does one wear the right religious markers, say prayers in public, attend church, etc.). The true test is how one treats the social outcasts ("the least of these"). 
I wonder what Jesus would say about the "religious right" in America today?  Just today, I was listening to NPR on my short commute to my office. The local news report was about how the Louisiana legislature passed a bill called "The Pastor Protection Act." Basically, it creates a specific law that says pastors cannot be compelled by the government to perform a gay wedding.  Views about gay marriage aside, the fact of the matter is the government already cannot do this. The first amendment and separation of church and state already provide pastors with this protection. As I listened to the report, I shook my head and all I could think about is what would Jesus think about this?  It was nothing but political pandering/grandstanding by politicians who identify with the religious right.  The bill they wasted time on drafting and debating changes nothing. It accomplishes nothing. It provides not a single ounce of legal protection that was not already there. All it does is allow politicians who want to wear their religion on their sleeves and who want to "make America great again" to be able to go out on the campaign trail and bloviate about passing "The Pastor Protection Act."  Meanwhile, Louisiana is the second poorest state in the nation. Meanwhile, we face a $1 billion budget shortfall. Meanwhile, we have a serious lack of healthcare and education funding. Meanwhile, we have a serious epidemic of public health problems related to substance abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, toxic waste in our environment, and improper funding for those with physical and mental disabilities. Meanwhile we hand out more money in corporate tax breaks than we collect in tax revenues. On and on, I could go. We have major, major problems and inequities to solve related to social justice, but instead politicians were taking up precious time during their legislative session to debate and pass "The Pastor Protection Act" so that that they can self-righteously politicize it to their conservative constituency. Do you think Jesus might tell them, "You hypocrites! You strain at gnats while swallowing a camel"? I think so!
By the way, it is not my goal here to debate religion and politics. I am not trying to mix religion and politics here. I am making observations based on how it is already being mixed in our current socio-political milieu, just as Jesus spoke out and addressed the unhealthy cocktail that was mixed in his day. I invite civil and respectful responses as they apply to the subject matter.

Dear Governor Edwards, Legislators, and Citizens of Louisiana,

I teach in the UL System, and as I print out my W-2's for the year, I am having trouble reconciling a few things. First, college faculty in the UL System have not had so much as a meager cost of living raise in nearly a decade. We are professionals with the highest level of education and mountains of student debt to show for it. Yet on average we make significantly lower wages than our colleagues in almost every other state, and we are victims of a loyalty tax. Every year, we make less and less, as the consumer price index rises while our wages remain stagnant. What other professional class of workers would stomach a decade without a single pay raise? I am not even bringing up merit raises--you know, the kind where you have your annual evaluation and receive a pay raise for doing exemplary work. Merit raises at Louisiana campuses have been rarer than a President Obama supporter at a Tea Party rally. I am talking about basic cost of living raises that just keep us making the same salary when adjusted for inflation. I repeat, we have not even had a cost of living raise in nearly a decade.

Second, how is it fair that because, all things being equal, I will receive a very modest pension when I retire, I cannot receive my full Social Security benefit--even though I have paid into the system for over 20 years before becoming a college professor and may continue to pay into social security through part-time jobs? If I worked in the private sector and made a much larger salary and received a much more generous pension, I could still draw my full social security benefit. Again, how is this fair? Years ago, the legislature enacted a law to prevent me from receiving my full social security benefit, lest I receive a government windfall. Seriously, a windfall? The way I see it, the government just decided to confiscate my social security contributions and rob me of the benefit that I deserve.

Third, because I need to supplement my sub-par salary that is over 20% below the regional average for my position, I do some adjunct work to help pay the bills. On this supplemental income, the state still deducts 8% out of my paycheck for my retirement; however, the income I make from my adjunct work does not count toward my salary total when my pension is calculated. So, the state deducts the money from my paycheck but does not pay me the benefit for which the deduction is made? How is this fair? Please, Governor Edwards and Louisiana legislators, will you do something to help out the hundreds of dedicated Louisiana faculty who are in the same boat with me? Many Louisiana faculty are at the breaking point and looking to you for some positive changes that we desperately need.

Sincerely,
Michael S. Jeffress, PhD

This is a post I made on Facebook on Sunday, June 28, 2015, with some revisions added.

Many of you know that I used to be a minister. Yes, I was a preacher for 16 years (1992-2008). I was formerly a staunch conservative and spoke out against many social issues of the day, including gay marriage. I even published a book with Olive Press in 2005 calling for national repentance. Needless to say, I have had a change of heart in many respects. I know that many pastors today have preached sermons of doom and gloom. They have somehow confused their job as a spiritual leader with one of being a political activist, which Jesus never was, mind you! So, I want to offer just a few thoughts to counter that narrative. I offer these not in an effort to create a flame war debate in the comments. I only hope that we can strive for peace and that religious people can let civil government do its job without trying to turn America into a theocracy. It is merely food for thought and an attempt to bring some balance/perspective for all the judgment, condemnation, and hell, fire, and brimstone that is out there. Whether or not you agree with the SCOTUS decision, it does not change these biblical teachings:

Regardless of the circumstances or topic of debate, the biblical rule is to be nice: “Be ye kind to one another” (Ephesians 4:32, KJV).

Regardless of the circumstances or the topic of debate, the biblical rule is not to take matters into your own hands: “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse… Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge…” (Romans 12:14, 17-19; NIV).

Regardless of the circumstances or the topic of debate, the biblical rule is not to wish or to exercise harm on any of your neighbors: “Love does no wrong to others, so love fulfills the requirements of God's law” (Romans 13:10, NLT).

Regardless of the circumstances or the topic of debate, the biblical rule is to embrace the outcast and marginalized groups in society: Remember the stories of the Samaritan woman, the adulterous woman, the sinful woman, the prostitutes, the “demon possessed,” the tax collectors, the lepers, etc. Because of your actions and rhetoric toward marginalized groups, would people call you the sinner’s friend like they did Jesus (Matthew 11:18-19)?

Regardless of the circumstances or the topic of debate, the biblical rule is to live and let live. Yes, it really is. The entire chapter of Romans 14 is about people with different interpretations about proper behavior and their need to honor their conscience without trying to bind their conscience on others or to judge them. It ends with some excellent advice, “So let us concentrate on the things which make for harmony, and on the growth of one another’s character…Your personal convictions are a matter of faith between yourself and God (Romans 14:19, 22, Phillips).

Regardless of the circumstances or the topic of debate, the biblical rule is respect the law of the land. “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves” (Romans 13:1-2, NIV). Even Jesus, himself, said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s" (Mark 12:17, NiV). Many Caesars were homosexuals and built "pagan" temples throughout their empires with tax dollars, yet Jesus recognized the difference in what is spiritual and what is secular and he did not concern himself with trying to force his will on the secular. This does not mean you always agree or do not work peacefully and through appropriate channels to effect change, but it means that you live respectfully as a citizen in the meantime.

Regardless of the circumstances or the topic of debate, the biblical rule is Jesus never wanted to establish a kingdom on earth. He did not want to have land and subjects and earthly government because people would fight like they are doing now when they want to try to govern a nation as if it is a church instead of a secular country ruled by civil law. I think Jesus' response to all the rhetoric of “Christian nation” would be, “Leave me out of it!” Jesus said plainly, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were my servants would fight…” (John 18:36, NIV). And here is a thought, if Jesus were to suddenly change his mind about having an earthly kingdom, do you think his approach would be to send Europeans to systematically oppress and slaughter the Native Americans, promote greed for land and gold to expand westward, and use African slave labor to clear and cultivate the land to establish his kingdom on earth? Come on, America, as a nation, has been no shining city of a hill, and the Puritans were misguided to think that they could merge the spiritual and secular to make a physical kingdom so. 

Regardless of the circumstances or the topic of debate, the biblical rule is, "We must obey God rather than human beings" (Acts 5:29, NIV). I know this passage is sure to become a rallying call for Christians in America to protest the SCOTUS decision. However, to do so, in my opinion, is to misapply this passage by ripping it out of context. Peter is not bucking civil government when he states this. He is not akin to a county clerk refusing to obey civil law and issue a marriage license because of religious belief. No, he is standing before a Jewish religious court regarding his actions at religious services in the temple.  Peter and the rest of the Apostles had been preaching about Jesus in the temple courtyards, and the Jewish religious council, on religious grounds, is commanding them to stop. To this, Peter states, "We must obey God rather than human beings." To apply this in a contemporary setting would not be to make it analogous to a Christian defying civil law. This passage would apply only within religious contexts, such as if you are a member of a church and the leaders of that church command you to do something that violates a clear command of God. If that happens, then by all means quote Acts 5:29, but the county court house is not a church, and the SCOTUS is not making rulings to regulate your behavior during religious services.  So, obey God according to your conscience, like Peter, as it relates to fulfilling your spiritual duties, but you are obeying God when you respect civil law. God has not called you to be a vigilante who openly defies government.  Even under oppressive Caesars, like Nero, who persecuted Christians and outlawed churches, the Apostles never called on Christians to protest and try to change their government rules. They still practiced their faith privately and in public did their best to live quiet and peaceful lives and to overcome evil with good. May Christians in America do likewise today.

You do not have to like it, but it is the law of the land. It is not going to suddenly make more people decide that they are gay and want a gay wedding. It is not going to result in a drastic decline in the U.S. population, leaving us vulnerable down the road to foreign oppression (Yes, I actually heard someone make this argument in a public debate). It will not force ordained ministers to perform weddings against their conscience. Yes, if you want to serve as a county clerk or a justice of the peace, then you will need to fulfill your duties as a civil servant. You are not performing a religious duty; you are doing your job as a civil worker. It does not mean that you have to personally agree with your job, but you are obligated to do it. If you can't, then you should resign to honor your conscience without making an issue of it. But consider this, you are not being asked to be gay yourself. You are not being asked to perform the wedding. You are not being asked to murder, to commit adultery, or to break any of the Ten Commandments. How are you sinning, if you merely hand a gay couple an application for a marriage license that is now their constitutional right to have? Do you even need to ask if they are gay?  Just because two men come to ask for a marriage application, does this mean they are gay? Could one of the men not be a good friend or brother?  To me, this is where the biblical rule to ask no questions for the sake of conscience would come in handy (1 Cor. 10:25). It is none of your business. You do not need to know if the application is being used for a gay wedding or a heterosexual one. To paraphrase Paul, "Hand out the application, asking no questions for conscience' sake."  If you think you would be sinning or condoning sin by handing out the application, then are you doing so if you give a marriage license to a couple who are marrying without their parents' approval? To an unwed mother? To a couple who have been "living in sin" by co-habitating before marriage? To a divorcee who is remarrying for a reason other than adultery? If not, why not?

It is not civil government's role to evaluate the morality of all of these scenarios; it is to ensure that equal protection under the law is afforded to all. In your church you can determine whether or not you approve of such arrangements, whether or not you teach that it is okay, whether or not you admit this one or that one into your church membership, based on biblical teachings. You have that right, and the SCOTUS decision does not threaten that.  The First Amendment protects you from government interference into how you exercise your religion, but it equally protects others from having their civil rights infringed upon by your religious beliefs.  There must be a wall of separation for this to be, and that wall is the wall that separates spiritual affairs related to what you do or do not do in church and in the privacy of your own home or in actions that are specifically religious in nature, and secular affairs governed by civil law. When you claim the right to exercise your religious beliefs in and through the secular affairs of government, then you are joining what God wills to keep separated and creating a situation where all will eventually live by the sword and die by it, because even Christians cannot agree among themselves about how to interpret many core religious teachings. 

Abraham Baldwin was one of the "founding fathers" of America and signed the Constitution.  He served as a chaplain during the American Revolutionary War and established the first public university in the U.S., the University of Georgia, in 1785.  The Father of UGA said, "When the minds of the people in general are viciously disposed and unprincipled, and their conduct disorderly, a free government, will be attended with greater confusions and evils more horrid than the wild, uncultivated state of nature. It can only be happy when the public principle and opinions are properly directed and their manners regulated. This is an influence beyond the reach of laws and punishments and can be claimed only by religion and education" (Source: http://www.partyof1776.net/p1776/fathers/BaldwinAbraham/quotes.html).

Thomas Jefferson--yes, the Thomas Jefferson who was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence and the third president of the U.S.--was also the founder of one of America's earliest public institutions of higher learning, the University of Virginia, in 1819. The Father of UVA said, "This institution of my native state, the hobby of my old age, will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind, to explore and to expose every subject susceptible of its contemplation."  Jefferson’s vision was for UVA to be an “institution on which the fortunes of our country may depend more than may meet the general eye.”  (Source: http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/quotations-university-virginia).

Read those two quotes from fathers of the American public university system, and ask yourself the question, what is the reason why these early public universities were established?  What would Baldwin or Jefferson have said is the goal of higher education?  What reason would they have given for people to attend college and earn a degree?  Would they have said, "For this great American experiment to succeed we will need a highly skilled workforce"?  Would they have argued, "We are on the eve of a great industrial revolution that will call for the retraining of American workers"?  I think it is clear that the founders of American public universities recognized an intrinsic value in being well educated.  The goal was to enlighten the minds of the American people in such a way as to benefit the individual and also secure the freedom and development of American society.  By developing the discipline of study and broadening the horizons of the mind in students, the university system would produce a citizenry that could make informed decisions, develop and maintain just laws and civilized society, and not be blinded by ignorance, fooled by rhetoric, and fall victim to unscrupulous entrepreneurs and politicians.

Ads for online degree programs flood Web banners and television. The University of Phoenix, DeVry University, and the like communicate a singular message:  Earn a degree so that you can get the job you want.  Nothing is mentioned about freeing the power of human mind.  Nothing is said of learning discipline and principles to enrich society.  No word is made about the intrinsic value of an education and learning important lessons of history, contemplating the major dilemmas of humanity, becoming fluent writers and public speakers, or gaining social capital through a basic knowledge of the Arts and Sciences.  No, no, a thousand times no!  It is all about, "We give you the skills (not knowledge, mind you) to train you (not educate you), so that you can enter the workforce (not enter society as an enlightened individual able to utilize critical thinking skills).  Now, I admit that technical and trade schools provide a valuable service for people who do not meet the entrance criteria or who are not interested in a 4-year degree, but I am presently writing in defense of a liberal arts education against the popular opinion that earning a degree is simply a means to the end of obtaining a good job.

As a college professor, I bemoan what I view as the systematic dismantling of public universities from places to promote critical thinking to challenge old paradigms and reconstructing them into residency programs for workforce development.  I am appalled by all the QEPs and accreditation policies and procedures that evaluate degree programs outcomes only (or primarily) in terms of how they translate into jobs.  I am offended by articles and editorials that rank degrees by associated incomes and judge degrees as “useless” if they do not land recipients a high-paying job (e.g., http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2011/04/27/20-most-useless-degrees.html; and http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-most-useless-graduate-degrees-2013-9)  I reject the adoption of the business model approach to higher education that treats students as consumers who have to be satisfied customers—after all they are paying good money and should be able to expect to get a degree.  This leads to situations in which if a student takes math seven times and never makes the "C" required to pass, then academic affairs will just lower the requirement to pass to a "D." Think about it, when Americans pay money for a product they expect to get a satisfaction-guaranteed-or-your-money-back promise.  And students bring this consumer mentality with them when they “shop” for a college. And the above example of lowering the gen ed math requirement from a "C" to a "D" is a real one. I listened to the provost of the university explain to the faculty senate that we had to lower our standard because another university in the region had done so, and we would lose students if upheld the higher standard. I mean, God forbid that we do that--that we actually would care about the quality of a student who earns a degree at our institution. But that is where we are. This is the reality. Because the oligarchs who pull the strings want an obedient labor force and because they have bought and paid for the politicians, state funding for higher education has been drastically reduced--especially in the "red states."  So, universities have been forced by attrition to lower standards, adopt a business model, treat students as consumers, and fight each other to recruit and retain them, and students can game this system, and they do.

When I go to a retail store, I generally have a recognized need for a product, and I know that multiple retailers stock the product.  Therefore, I look for the biggest bang for my buck.  I expect the retailer to provide good customer service if they want my money.  I will order it online with free shipping, if the price is better.  But comparing this scenario to students taking college classes is a false analogy.  I dare say that the average 18-19 year-old first-year college does not recognize the need for much of the “products” I “sell” in the classroom.  They do not appreciate courses in the humanities because they do not see an immediate and practical application to their lives or a direct correlation between the subject matter and their chosen career.  Because they are at school to get a degree to get a job, what matters is not learning; what matters is merely passing the course and progressing toward degree completion.  The goal becomes to get the degree as quickly and efficiently as possible.

This type of system rewards students who follow the path of least resistance.  They go to ratemyprofessors.com and they look not for who is the best professor, who will challenge them the most, who will teach them the most; instead, they look for who is rated the easiest, who requires the least, who expects the least, who grades the easiest, and, of course, who has a chili pepper "hottness" rating.  They do the minimum required work.  They are happy to get their “C” or “D” (which might even be an “A” or “B” in the easy instructor’s class) just so they progress down the path to getting the piece of paper that secures them the job.  And if an instructor tries to push them to actually learn something and actually earn an “A” or “B” in the class, and actually expects them to show up to class and pay attention in class, well then that instructor will get low marks on the customer satisfaction survey at the end of the semester. 

And, yes, because we have adopted the business model, those surveys impact the instructor’s rating and potential for earning tenure, getting a promotion or pay raise, etc.  The students will also complain to the deans and threaten to take their business elsewhere.  Indirect pressure will then be applied to the instructor to remember how competitive the market is and how overly committed our students are these days.  I wonder if the increased classroom sizes and teaching loads are really a result of budget cuts or a deliberate attempt to make it more difficult for instructors to enforce rigorous standards.  If instructors have larger classes and more sections of them to teach, then that means fewer speeches in speech class, fewer essays in English class, less problem sets in math class, shorter term papers in history class, and so on. University administrators now compete in a race to the bottom to compete for students. Online programs, which are a huge cash cow for universities, have little safeguards to ensure students ever actually attend lectures or do any original work. And whenever the first online program decides to sacrifice academic integrity by doing away with exam proctoring, then doing away with final exams period, and not allowing instructors to use anti-plagiarism tools like Turnitin, well, then, like dominoes, every other university does the same because students can enroll in any online program anywhere in the world, so, again, because they are only interested in getting a work credential as quickly and inexpensively as possible, they are not going to choose an online program that would actually make them study, make them use correct grammar and spelling, make them write a term paper, make them take a final exam, and catch them and penalize them for cheating.

The end result is we are now mass producing degrees that in many cases are not worth the paper on which they are printed.  We are graduating more students with degrees.  They graduate knowing how to perform skills to do a job.  They know the expectations of their future employers.  They have been pre-programmed to go out and plug in to the job market efficiently.  In many cases they will fill a job, earn a fair salary, and pay taxes.  But, they do not know how to evaluate and challenge the ethics of the practices of the company for which they work.  They do not know how to contemplate ethical questions that have profound implications for society.  They will make social media posts, but not know the difference in there, their, or they're.  They will send e-mails full of grammar and syntax problems.  They will live in the moment, but have no perspective of history to safeguard against repeating its mistakes.  They will go to the ballot box, but will not have the critical thinking skills to sift through the political rhetoric and cast an informed vote.  They will pass through museums and theaters while keeping their eyes glued to their phones because they do not know how to appreciate fine art.  They will perhaps keep a job and make a decent living, but they will feel unfulfilled because they chose a major based on potential career earnings, and they did not pursue their passions, explore their curiosities, or feed their souls while they were in college.  They stuck to their degree plan and took no extra electives simply for the pleasure of learning something new.  Like shrewd business managers, they efficiently worked and manipulated the college system to “earn” their degrees.  And I guess from a business perspective, they will have gotten their money’s worth.  They got a piece of paper, and they got a job.  If only the public university had not sold its soul, turned its back on its founding mission, they could have actually received a well-rounded liberal arts education and not simply a glorified vo-tech degree.

Oh, and for those who still think a degree should be about the job and that humanities degrees are "useless," even though I fundamentally disagree with these types of surveys,  here is a link to a story about a few millionaires and billionaires who would disagree: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/28/the-unusual-college-major_n_4654757.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Son, I do not mourn your death as much as I mourn

     the death of the dream that died with you.

I know that you suffered; your tired body was worn out,

     but the dream was very much still alive--

A dream that you might decide to fight a little longer

     buy us a little more time and keep this dream alive…

A dream that you might live long enough

     to witness the cure of your dreadful disease…

A dream that you might be able to realize your dream

     to continue your studies and graduate from college…

A dream that you could experience some measure

     of independent living and land your dream job as a sportscaster…

A dream that you would find that special someone

     and experience the euphoria of romantic love…

A dream that you would find your soul mate,

     get married, and know the joy of becoming a parent…

A dream that you would live long enough to see

     your mother healthy and whole and happily remarried…

A dream that you would live long enough to see me give

     your sisters away to men who will love them as much as you and I…

A dream that you would decide to give your stepmother and me

     a chance to provide a home and care for you as we so wanted to do…

A dream that we could become the family we longed to be

     and renovate the room above the garage to be your bachelor pad…

A dream that you might finish your degree here at Nicholls

     and remember the joy of playing power soccer on our new team…

A dream that we could allow you to take your monthly disability check

     and buy your dream accessible vehicle or whatever you wanted…

A dream that you would live long enough to have on this side of time

     more peace and understanding—you had less than your fair share.

Now you are gone and I must not dwell on what might have been,

     but life will never be the same now that this dream has come to an end.

I grew up in a conservative environment that preached the holy trinity of love: God, Country, and Family.  The heroes of the communities I grew up in were war veterans—especially WWII veterans.  A special reverence was always observed in their presence.  They were perennially honored at school functions, church functions, in town parades, and whenever their presence was realized.  License plates, bumper stickers, hats, pins, and anything else that indicated the owner was a war veteran instantly evoked a sense of gratitude and wonder.  I was brought up to believe that no greater sacrifice could be made than to die on the battlefield.

 I had been raised to believe that America is a “Christian Nation” and that all of her wars were just and the people who fought in them should be canonized as saints.  Okay, maybe not made saints, but definitely to be respected and venerated.  My dad loved to watch the old war movies like “Patton,” and Vietnam War movies were constant box office hits during my adolescence.  My formative years were during the time that Reagan was president, and the Cold War rhetoric was at its peak.  The fear of communism and nuclear annihilation resulted in a greater emphasis on and devotion to the sacred trio of God, Country, and Family.  These three became as homoousian as the Council of Nicaea’s Trinity.

When I became a minister in the mid-Nineties, I started out preaching for small, rural congregations, in which the majority of the older men were veterans of WWII or Korea and the middle-aged men were Vietnam vets.   I was often invited and expected to lead prayers at VFW sponsored events, and nothing was more sacred than officiating a military funeral.  The military definitely knows how to bury people in a way that evokes reverence and patriotism.

War stories and discussions of the sacrifices veterans made often cropped up during Sunday school and potlucks.  People in the pews often interpreted biblical verses through the filter of American patriotism.  For example, whenever the Ten Commandments were considered, we were always quick to point out that “Thou shalt not kill,” does not apply to a Christian doing his or her God-given duty in the military.  It is a “God-given duty” because of passages that instruct that we should render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and that we are to obey our leaders, and that governments are ordained of God, and their leaders are God’s servants (I can provide you with the Scripture references, but you’ve probably heard them before).

All of this seemed well and good, until I began to read Christian thinkers of the past who were pacifists—people who conscientiously objected because they equated the church with Isaiah’s peaceable kingdom in which swords were to be beaten into plowshares.  People who put conscience above country because of a passage that states that it is better to obey God than man.  I had certainly never heard of these people or had their views represented to me.  Then the thing occurred that forever changed my views on the whole debate: I travelled to the former Soviet Union.

In 1994, I was part of a mission team that went to Minsk, Belarus to conduct Bible studies for two weeks.  This was my first trip outside of the U. S.  It was my first trip in an airplane and only my second trip outside of the state of Arkansas.  My only perceptions of communism and people from the Soviet Union had come from the U. S. government and media.  When I got there, I saw for myself that the reality was drastically different.  I did not realize it then, but this was my first taste of critical cultural studies, a branch of social science research that examines the power structures and propaganda that control people.

On our last night in Belarus, we had a reception at the hotel for all the translators who worked with the mission team.  After our meal, we went around the room taking turns to rise and say something to the group about what the experience had meant to us.   Near the end of the cycle, Sergei rose.  He was a tall, slender man in his mid-50s, I presumed.  He had been quiet and reserved during the two weeks.  He was the stoic, Soviet man that I had come to expect from the media portrayals I had consumed all my life.

Sergei did not have many words, but what he said chilled me to the bone.  His words were like a blinding light, and they resulted in a Damascus road conversion experience for me.  He basically said, “You know, all my life I was told that Americans are my enemy.”  I thought, “Yeah, I was taught the same thing about Soviets.”  He added that his military training had prepared him to kill Americans, and then he said, “But now I realize it was all a lie.  I have brothers and sisters in America.  You are my brothers and sisters.”

It was then that I realized the tragedy of the predicament that the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. had been in for so long: two governments each preparing its citizens to kill the other.  All the while, if the people could just meet each other, just spend two weeks with each other; they would be able to see that it was all a lie.

I came back to America a changed man.  The next time I stood before my Sunday school class and the conversation came up about one’s God-given duty to country, I was unsure exactly what I believed, but I knew what I no longer believed.  This is how it played out:

Me:  To whom does the Great Commission apply?  To the whole world or just to the U.S.?

Class: The whole world.

Me:  Is the Bible for the whole world or just the U.S.?

Class: The whole world.

Me:  Does the Bible teach that citizens are supposed to obey the government?

Class: That’s right!

Me:  So, if Uncle Sam, tells you to take up arms and go kill the Soviets, then it is your God-given duty to obey Uncle Sam?

Class:  Absolutely!

Me:  Okay, well, what about Sergei, who is a Christian in Russia.  He has the same Bible.  He has the same verse that tells him to obey the government.  His president tells him to take up arms and kill Americans.  So, is it his God-given duty then to obey his government to the end result that we have American Christians trying to kill Russians and Russian Christians trying to kill Americans and both are obeying God?

Class: Now wait a minute! Uh….

This is the conundrum that no Christian has ever been able to resolve to me, and by their reactions they seem to have never even known it existed until I presented them with it.

Is there such a thing as a just war?  Perhaps.  I certainly think someone like Hitler had to be stopped.  And although I have a problem with a society over glorifying military service, I do deeply respect the service our veterans have rendered, and I believe they deserve every benefit in terms of healthcare and social services that we can afford them.  Some of my best friends and the people who have tremendously influenced me in positive ways are veterans.

All I am saying is that it is not as simple of a matter as some make it out to be when they preach the peculiar American gospel of God, Country, and Family.  Whatever excuse you may use to justify war and/or your involvement in it as a Christian, you cannot do it by simply quoting Scriptures that tell you to obey the government.  You cannot have Christians using the same verse to justify killing each other and believe that this could be God’s will.

You have a right to believe and practice however you do; I am simply asking you to examine the reason behind your beliefs and practices.  Our hurried lives tend to focus on who, what, when, where, and how, but the question of why is the deeper and more important one to ponder.

“Brother Jeffress, you can come pick me up for church.” Perhaps the only words that had ever excited me more than these were when the doctor said, “It’s a boy!” at the birth of my firstborn. When Ms. Hattie phoned that Sunday morning agreeing to attend church with me, I was exuberant. It was like a mission being fulfilled. No, not a mission to “save” or “convert” Ms. Hattie. She had long been a believer and attended another church in town. What excited me about bringing Ms. Hattie to church was, frankly, the color of her skin.

Ms. Hattie is an older, but far from frail, black lady, who lives in a small community in the Deep South where I was a pastor of a “white church” at the turn of the new millennium. Believe it or not, many people in “the Bible belt” still label churches as either "black" or "white" based on the racial profile of the membership.  In small towns throughout Dixie Land, churches within the same denomination often have a "white church" on the town square and a "black church" on the other side of the tracks. 
 
I say I was a pastor of a "white church," but we did actually have one African-American on the church roll.  He was a 90-year-old, retired preacher, for whom it became too dangerous to drive across town to attend the “black church.”  It was clear that some were not happy to have his picture in the church directory, but he was "tolerated" by most because, as I was told, he "behaves himself" in church.

Racial unity became my mission after I went off to college and formed social groups that for the first time included non-Caucasians. Years later, I meet Ms. Hattie.  She attended the women’s study group on Thursday mornings at my church. "When are you going to come hear me preach?" I would always ask her.  She would just chuckle and give an expression that communicated, "Boy, if you knew what I knew about some of the people in this church, you wouldn’t be asking me this.”

At the time, Ms. Hattie is well up into her 80s and lives in HUD housing.  She doesn’t own a car, so whenever I meet her at the grocery store or see her walking along a street, I stop and offer her a ride.  Each time I drop her off at her apartment, the last thing I say is, “You know, all you have to do is call, and I will come pick you up for church.”  Every time, she communicates with her eyes, “You are a very sweet but naïve young man.”
 
After numerous lifts from the grocery store and kind gestures here and there, I develop a rapport with Ms. Hattie. Eventually, I confide in her the motive behind my inviting her to church. I assure her that I am not trying to proselytize and that I am only seeking an ally to help racially integrate my congregation. After about two years of persistent goodwill and gentle persuasion, one Sunday morning my phone rings.
 
As I am driving Ms. Hattie to church that first time, she tells me why she decided to call.  “I was praying about it,” she begins. “And I said, ‘Lord, that boy really is not prejudiced, and he really wants me to go to church with him.’ So I picked up the phone this morning and called.”
 
Even though I was a pastor, it took many months of persistent kindness to break down a wall and prove to Ms. Hattie that I genuinely cared about her as a person and wanted her to help me confront racism in my church. All of this points to the discrimination she had faced in her lifetime, and doubtlessly including some perpetrated by my church members.  I know that decades previously she served as a nanny to some of the families in my church. Consider of the book/movie “The Help” and you will get the picture of what her experiences would have been like.
           
“When we get to church, I want you to sit with my family,” I tell Ms. Hattie. I hate to admit it, but I am a little concerned how her presence will be received, and I want to try to shield her from any mistreatment. Sure, she has attended the women’s class on Thursday mornings, but the main service on Sunday is a horse of a different color.  One need not attend many southern churches to discover that the Sunday morning service is sacrosanct.
           
As we walk in together and I escort Ms. Hattie down the center aisle, jaws of my church members are dropping. The whites of all their eyes and their uvulas are in full view, and some people are giving themselves whiplash. I do not know which of us is more nervous. I have not felt this many butterflies since I was in a locker room before a big game back in high school.
 
We take our seat. We sing hymns. We say prayers. I give my sermon. Through it all, Ms. Hattie sits relatively quiet and still.  When the service ends, I drive her across town to her church because she did not want to miss their monthly dinner on the grounds. Her church receives me with open arms. We enjoy some good food, and then I take her home. 
           
The next Sunday morning my phone rings again. After the third Sunday in a row that Ms. Hattie attends church with me, it starts happening.  We walk into church the next service and at least six other African American guests are scattered throughout the pews.  Emboldened by Ms. Hattie’s example, a couple of school teachers and coaches have invited some of their students and colleagues.  Not only that, but also Ms. Hattie is becoming more comfortable.  She begins to open up more, to sing more, to sway more, to raise her hands more, to shout more.  Bless her heart, she even apologizes to me afterwards, “I don’t want to get you in trouble.  I try to hold it in, but when that Spirit hits me, I just have to let it out.”  I tell her that she never has to apologize for releasing some spirit inside the church and not ever to think she is causing any trouble for me.
          
My heart is full of joy, as I drive home, but in my mind I know that a backlash is imminent.  Sure enough, the next morning the chairman of the church board pays a visit to my office.  After a little small talk, he starts beating around the bush:

            “Well, Mike, people are talking.” 

            “Oh, what about?” 

            “Well, they are wondering what you are up to?” 

            “‘What am I up to?’  What do you mean?”  (I know good and well what he meant but perhaps part of me was engaging in wishful thinking).

            “Well, bringing Ms. Hattie to church….”

            My knuckles turn white on my interlocked fingers resting on my lap. I tell myself to stay calm and reply, “Well, she calls me and asks me to give her a ride to church, and I go pick her up.  That’s what I’m up to.”

            “Well, couldn’t she go to ‘Magnolia St. Church’”? (The “black church” on the other side of the tracks).

            “I’m sure she could go there if she wanted to.  I’ve never asked her about it.”

            “Well, isn’t she a member of ‘Dogwood Ave. Church’”?  (A different denomination’s “black church” in the same town.)

            “Yes, I believe she is still a member.  In fact, I took her to a potluck over there after services a few weeks ago.”

            “Well, why does she want to come here?”

            At this point it becomes difficult for me to keep my cool, but I do my best and answer, “I guess that’s a question to ask Ms. Hattie.”

             Then, God as my witness, he says, “Well, we just don’t want to create any problems that we don’t already have.”

            I feel my blood pressure rise.  I lean forward in my chair and say respectfully but firmly, “I don’t believe for a second that my bringing a black woman to this church is creating any problem, but I do believe it is revealing a problem that we already have in the hearts of people.” I paused only for a second and then added, “And I believe God has called me to address heart problems.”

             His nonverbals at this point communicate, “I was afraid you would say something like that,” but what comes out is, in a long southern drawl, “Well, you’re probably right.” With that he rises silently and departs, and I have an awful premonition.  At the next church board meeting, the group of all white men pressure me to stop bringing Ms. Hattie to church. I counter by asking them to be true spiritual leaders and repent of the prejudice they are harboring. They retort, “We aren’t prejudiced; we gave Magnolia St. Church $50,000 to help build their building!”
 
I am stupefied by how oblivious they are to the irony in that statement. I respond almost laughingly in disbelief, “Really?  You give $50,000 to the blacks so they can build their building on the other side of the tracks instead of worshiping here with you, and that is the proof you give that you are not prejudiced?” 
          
At this meeting, the writing is clearly on the wall, and soon thereafter I decide to break the news of my pending resignation to Ms. Hattie. She feels guilty and thinks it is all her fault.  I explain to her how it has now become a power struggle between me and the board. It is simply a case of church politics. I assure her that this is a fight that I chose, and although we might be losing the battle, we can still win the war. 
 
“If the church is to have any hope of racial healing, then I have to go, but you can stay. You can continue to fight this good fight we’ve started,” I tell Ms. Hattie.  We continue to talk about how it’s only a matter of time until some people will be ugly to her and pressure her not to attend, but that in the end our sacrifices might pay off.  We both know that nothing will change until someone takes a stand.  It cannot be me, despite how much I want it to be. If I stay and refuse to give in, I will be fired. To stay and be silent, however, is not an option.  I must resign.
          
So I do and become pastor of a new church a few hours away.  I would occasionally return for weddings and funerals and run into Ms. Hattie or call her on the phone. Bless her heart, a year later she was still attending my old church. “You have no idea, how much it means to me knowing that you are carrying on what we started,” I told her, and added, “Ms. Hattie, you are my legacy.” The thing I am most proud about my years at that church is the fact that she continued to attend after I left. 
          
A few years later, I moved farther away and lost touch with Ms. Hattie. The last time I spoke to a friend from that church was some seven years later. I asked him about Ms. Hattie.  “She still comes,” he said.  “People don’t like it, but she still comes.”  I smiled. No words. Just a long, satisfying smile, and heaven forgive me, but I couldn’t help but think, “Give ‘em hell, Ms. Hattie; you give ‘em hell!”

The Anderson County Courthouse in East Tennessee now displays the phrase, "In God We Trust" above the doors of its main entrance.  In case you have not heard about this latest saga in America's battle over the separation of Church and State, here is a link to a local news story about it. It seems to me that the debate has been intensifying in recent years with the 2012 presidential election between Mitt Romney and President Obama and all the debate over Obamacare, abortion, and gay rights.  The rhetoric of the “religious right” is becoming increasingly militaristic and unapologetic in the insistence that America is a “Christian nation” and that our laws should be consistent with an evangelical interpretation of the Bible.  To listen to them, one would think that the mission of Jesus was to lay the foundation for an American theocracy 2,000 years later.

Well, if ever there was “One nation under God” it was Israel.  If any nation could rightly post “In God We Trust” on its currency and courthouses it was Israel. Israel had a proud “godly heritage.” They were the chosen people, the city on the hill.   But during the time that the Gospels have Jesus teaching and ministering in Palestine, Rome was the world superpower and Judea was a Roman province—not by choice, but a province nonetheless.

The people of Israel, and the religious zealots in particular, despised their Roman occupiers.  They resented having a Roman governor over them. They were disgusted by the compromise and corruption in their political system.  They despised seeing Roman soldiers stationed throughout their land with their pagan symbols and lifestyles.  They absolutely begrudged paying taxes to Rome.  They could only imagine with horror the manner of ungodly programs and practices that their tax dollars subsidized.  None of the Caesars had the Ten Commandments posted anywhere in Rome, and they certainly did not live by them.

I think that much of the rhetoric from the religious right in America today evokes the spirit of the first century Judeans.  Just to listen to their interviews on Fox news or read their Facebook posts, one would think America has been overtaken by a pagan Caesar who will not rest until every church is closed and every Christian is covered with wax, impaled on a stake and used to light up the White House lawn at night, ala Nero.  Okay, maybe that is a bit hyperbolic, but there is a tremendous amount of Obama hating and democrat bashing going on coaxed in religious rhetoric. Despite President Obama releasing his birth certificate and confessing numerous times his personal faith in Jesus Christ, the far right remains convinced that he is a foreign born Muslim.  Furthermore, everything the left does is construed to be an attack on religious freedom. From supporting gay rights to supporting women’s reproductive health—it is all an attack, a threat to precious religious liberty.

The rhetoric is certainly battlefield worthy.  The name calling and mudslinging have never been greater.  Like I said, it reminds me of what we read about the socio-political conditions of first-century Judea, when the founder of Christianity was born.  And it begs the question, what did the founder of Christianity think of these things?  When Christians so vehemently protest and bash President Obama and other democrats today, are they following the example set by their founder in the first century?  Let’s consider just one example from the Gospels as evidence.

In light of the fact that the taxes the Romans collected funded programs and policies that were against the Jewish faith and moral code, certainly Jesus would protest this and support those who did not want to pay taxes, right? Jesus would be sympathetic to the view that people of faith cannot be asked by their government to support things financially that they object to on religious grounds, right?  We do not need to conjecture as to what the answers to these questions are, because here is the concrete example that Jesus left for all of his followers:

        Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words.    They sent their disciples to him along with the
    Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in
    accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you  pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then,
    what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”

            But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for
        paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

            “Caesar’s,” they replied.

            Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”  (Matt. 22:15-21, NIV).

This story clearly shows Jesus setting an example of one who has the common sense to distinguish between the sacred and the secular.   Jesus paid taxes to the Roman government, and as far as I can tell, he did it without complaint.  He did not organize protests.  He did not run a smear campaign of government officials.  He did not raise objections to how the tax dollars were spent.  Long before Thomas Jefferson, we find Jesus affirming the concept of a wall of separation between church and state.  He did not concern himself with the day-to-day affairs of government.  He did not see it as his mission to warn people of government corruption.  In fact, the corruption that Jesus pointed out and rebuked was religious in nature.  Read the Gospels and you will find that the harshest words from Jesus were reserved for self-righteous, religious hypocrites.  If he were to respond to some of the Fox News anchors or to many of the Facebook posts I have read since President Obama came into office, I believe his comments would be along these lines:

        “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay   no attention to the plank
        in your own eye?  How can you say to your brother, ‘Let     me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there
        is a plank in your own eye?  You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to
        remove the speck from your brother’s eye. (Matt. 7:3-5, NIV)

         You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel (Matt. 23:24, NIV)

        But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken.
        (Matt. 12:36, NIV)

        Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.
        The authorities that exist have been established by God…This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s
        servants, who give their full time to governing.” (Rom. 13:1, 6; NIV).

If you call yourself a Christian, then be Christ-like and distinguish between the sacred and the secular.  Pure and undefiled religion is not exposing government corruption.  Heaven’s final exam does not contain any of the following questions:       

               How many bumper stickers and lawn signs did you own?
               Did you vote only for Christian politicians?
               Were your tax dollars used to subsidize only pure and holy things?
               How many letters did you write to congress in my name?
               How many Christian voter guides did you distribute?
               Were you against Obamacare?
               Did you support the Defense of Marriage Act?
               Did you refuse to offer health insurance that covers birth control?
               Did you fight for prayer in public school?
               Did you do your part to keep “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance?
               Were you responsible for any displays of Christianity on government property?

No, the best I can tell, the final exam contains only the following five questions (Matt. 25:31-46):           

               Did you give food and drink to those without?
               Did you provide shelter for those who needed it?
               Did you provide clothes for the poor?          
               Did you take care of the sick?
               Did you show compassion toward those in jail?