The Ignorant Man Tour with Robert Michael Havard

 

 

Be wise in the way you act toward outsiders; make the most of every opportunity.

Colossians 4:5

 

    Granger Good Shepherd United Methodist Church, always at the forefront of emerging opportunities, enters a new phase of public engagement as we proudly announce the October 18, 2025 performance of Robert Michael Havard and friends in the Little Theater of the Moreau Center on the campus of St. Mary’s College.

The doors open at 5:15 PM, the show begins at 6:00 PM

Robert Michael Havard continues his Ignorant Man tour bringing his professional stage presence, passionate voice, and enthusiastic approach to multiple genres of music including country, rock, gospel, and more.

Granger Good Shepherd United Methodist Church lovingly refers to Robert and friends as our house band (one Sunday per month) and eagerly assure you that you will have an evening of exceptional enjoyment!

The Little Theatre is housed at 54100 LeMans Drive South Bend Indiana, 46556 on the campus of St. Mary’s college.

Tickets are $20 each and can be purchased online at:

https://stmc-internet.choicecrm.net/dist/#/event-details/S0:E220

A splendid time is guaranteed for all!

 

British Monarch Profession of Protestant Faith before Parliament in Contrast to US Constituion

 

 

Did you realize that the words “So help me God”, spoken by Presidents as they take the required oath or affirmation of office, are not required to be spoken, nor are they even present in the Constitution?

I acknowledge that most, if not all Presidents, have spoken those words. But they have done so as a point of personal choice, not requirement.

I present the Constitutional requirement here:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

These words are found in Article 2, section 1, last paragraph.

The link to the full transcript of the Constitution is provided at the bottom of this post.

I offer that bit of information merely as an appetizer of the Constitution before I move on to the very tasty entre which follows.

Queen Elizabeth II, addressing Parliament for the first time, November 4, 1952, began with the following paragraph…

"I, Elizabeth, do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the Throne, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law."

This was not merely a point of personal choice for her. This profession, testimony, and declaration was necessary for her as she claimed the Throne.

There was at that time, and I believe still exists, the Act of Settlement and Protestant Succession, which was passed by Parliament in 1701. It requires the Monarch t be a member of the Church of England and to declare an oath to the Protestant faith.

Contrarily, here in the United States, there is no requirement that a person holding office of any level declare any religious faith.

In fact, Article VI, last paragraph concludes with the following provision…

“but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

It may be true that most people who lived in the United States at the time of the ratification of the Constitution were Christians of some stripe or another. I know that there were also Unitarians and Deists.

But this information regarding the Protestant Succession Act, which I am sure those educated framers of our government were aware of, tells us that if the framers had wanted to establish a Christian form of government, they had precedent and example to do so.

Yet they chose to go to great lengths to avoid establishing a religious government.

The Preamble of the Constitution has no religious language.

The 1^st Amendment provides that there shall be no establishment of religion by the government.

There is the aforementioned “no religious test” clause.

There are no stated prohibitions of religion, which they could, had they chosen, to include.

In stark and resolute contrast to the Protestant Succession Act of Parliament, 1701, The Constitution of the United States respects your conscience as being inviolate.

It is an exceptional trait provided to and by us. May it never be surrendered.

 

 

U S Constitution: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

 

Queen Elizabeth II speech: https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1952/nov/04/the-queens-speech

 

Act of Settlement and Protestant Succession: https://archive.org/details/sn-00683-Parliamant/mode/2up

Brief Tribute to Ozzy Osbourne

 

I was not a Black Sabbath fan. I had heard of them and their recordings but such musical tone and subject matter of lyric seemed a bit harsh to me.

In 1971 a classmate of mine suggested that I try listening to a full album and reading the lyric sheet.

Having then done so, I acquiesced “OK, a legitimate rock band”. But still, I was not going to attend a concert.

Later on in life, having had a son who preferred rock of the metal persuasion, I wound up going to concerts such as Motor Head, Metallica, and, yes, Black Sabbath at the Palace, Auburn Hills, February 19, 2016.

What an experience!

Women of all ages dressed in Goth, many who had never met before, coordinated to line up in front of the stage to simultaneously curtsey before the Prince of Darkness.

During the show, Ozzy insulted the attendees, his fans. In response they cheered and clapped! He called them the biggest losers ever. All the more they cheered and clapped!

But it was all a show. A rock show. A time for like-minded people to take a sabbath from their day to day lives and experience a sense of camaraderie.

After the show, Ozzy provided the benediction “I love you, God bless you, drive carefully”.

As harsh and heavy as his rock vocal, as chest-rattling was the sound of drums, bass, and guitars, with the same intensity this benediction was delivered by the Prince of Darkness.

And so, years later, upon the passing of Ozzy, I found myself compelled to watch the funeral processional as it drove past a commemoration site in Birmingham England.

Much gratitude for Sharon and family to take the time to stop, emerge from the car and show loving respect for the fans at this fan site before moving on to the private funeral.

A Star-speckled Navy Blue Sky and Lightening Bugs with sister Vickie

 

   

My sister Vickie and I enjoyed attention.

Though autumn is my favorite season, summertime reminds me of my very young days when agility, energy, discovery, and humor were ever present and likewise was my personal mindset. Age five is a wondrous moment when neither the past nor the future inhibit the adventurous present nor even inhabit it cognitively very much at all.

   Such was the case one night circa nineteen sixty.

   It had been a very hot day in Lafollette Tennessee there on Rose Hill. I don’t remember the month, but I remember the moment quite vividly as if the evening and its orchestra of environmental and social features had been imprinted on my emotional self to reemerge periodically and in that moment of reemergence remind me of who I most am as a person.

    Indeed, it was a hot day. My sister, Vickie, and I had run around in the heat, humidity, and sun with no care as to how it was affecting our bodily comfort. The only indication of heat was the sweat running from our heads, which we, I at least, brushed away with the backs of our hands.

I remember gulping tap water from a glass, loaded with tastable minerals to which I had become accustomed.

I sit between my uncle Raymond and Jim Eckenrode. My sister's toy baby buggy is visible behind us.

Rose Hill, Lafollette, Tennessee

But it was the evening which held the boldest memory.

I lay under a tree, through which leaves and branches I could see stars interrupt the color of the sky which, though I did not know to describe at the time, I now report as “star-speckled navy blue”. I lay, with my hands behind my head, fingers intertwined, cradling that head, and wondered what indeed were “stars”.

Concurrent with that cognitive wondering was the feel of a cool breeze upon my skin which caused the leaves in the tree to briefly obscure those stars of wonder until they appeared once again and I wondered too about the origins of cool breezes.

In all of that glorious sedentary experience, I was soon disrupted by my sister Vickie, older than me by eighteen months, as she grasped me by my hand and pulled me to my feet. Into the other hand she pushed an empty canning jar and invited me to, along with her, catch lightening bugs.

As the gathered adults drank beer, whisky, and smoked cigarettes and cigars, and gossiped about the local townsfolk regarding affairs, divorces, and sundry other spicy social circumstances, Vickie and I chased the lightening bugs, tripped over exposed tree roots, bumped into each other, and attempted to outdo each other in our collection of bugs.

    Unfortunately, one cannot control much of our own personal histories or futures. 

My sister would pass away from a brain tumor about two years later.

I am happy that this memory survives as homage to her.

This memory also comforts me in my continuing attribute of discovery and inquisitiveness.

It reminds me too that, as much as we should anticipate and prepare for the future, while honoring the past, it is the present that eagerly orchestrates a lifelong memory to cherish.

Great Britain’s Indelible Colonial Imprint on the United States

 

    Next year, July 4, 2026, the United States will celebrate its semiquincentennial of separation from Great Britain. As sensational is the fact of two hundred and fifty years of independence, I think some objective realism also has legitimate standing.

   I present the argument that American Culture is the result of the colonizing effect of the Empire of Great Britain, and more broadly, Europe.

    I begin with one of the most incongruous, uninformed, and rude scoldings I have heard from time to time. The phrase “You’re in America, speak English”, harshly bellowed to non-English speakers, misappropriates the language with attempt to claim it as “American”. Surely, we have enough logical capacity about us to realize that the English language came over on the Mayflower and subsequent ships from Great Britain.

    In fact, the colonization of many peoples around the world by the Empire of Great Britain resulted in English being a prominent language across the globe. It is not American intellectual property.

The English language did not spring up from the soil of the United States, it arrived and continues to live as a colonizing effect within all states and territories of the United States.

      Yet another residual effect of colonization is that of our Common Law system and, surprisingly, even our Constitution in which we have three coequal branches of government. While many believe the idea of Constitutional government and coequal branches to have been an American invention, I report to you a quote from King George III in an essay which he wrote in the late 1750s (many years before either the Declaration or Constitution were composed) …

“Thus we have created the noblest constitution the human mind is capable of framing, where the executive power is in the prince, the legislative in the nobility and the representatives of the people, and the judicial in the people and in some cases in the nobility, to whom there lies a final appeal from all other courts of judicature, where every man's life, liberty, and possessions are secure, where one part of the legislative body checks the other by the privilege of rejecting, both checked by the executive, as that is again by the legislative; all parts moving, and however they may follow the particular interest of their body, yet all uniting at the last for the public good.

                                    This from the biography King George III by John Brook (1972; 1974), p. 109.

   So, we see that even our form of government is not original to us but is a carryover from Great Britain.

    Yet another lingering effect of colonial times is that of capitalism. The great economics philosopher Adam Smith, author of “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” often referred to as “The Bible of Capitalism”, was born in Scotland and was a citizen of Great Britain.

   Even capitalism, celebrated almost idolatrously in the United States, is an effect of British colonization.

   So, from my objective viewpoint, I must ask “Just how independent from Great Britain are we?”

   And it isn’t only Great Britain that has had a lingering effect upon us.

A continuing complaint is how people sing the National Anthem. There are many people who prefer a particular way it is to be sung. This preferred way is Operatic Style. I remind folk that opera was an invention of Italy. The word “opera” is an Italian word meaning “work in music”.  And while I am discussing the National Anthem, that melody so cherished as almost angelic, was composed by John Stafford Smith who was, you probably guessed, British!

   If we really want our national anthem sung in a truly American style, without the residual effect of British colonization, perhaps it should be sung in one of two musical varieties which did spring up from the soil in America…Bluegrass or jazz!

Imagine, Francis Scott Key’s poem set to the tune “Take Five” by Dave Brubeck or perhaps something by Lester Flatt and Earl Scruggs.

Can’t you just hear the words of our national anthem to the tune of “The Ballad of Jed Clampett”?

I assert that the indelible imprint of the Empire of Great Britain is stamped upon these United States.

 And, as we approach Independence Day 2026, I ask again…”Just how independent are we”?

Social Costuming and Personality Excess

 

My wife, a continuing observant of anthropology and human behavior in general, is a proponent of the idea that the clothing we wear serves as a costume by which we may manage the perspectives of others as they evaluate us.

As many readers may have discovered, I periodically sport my Sgt. Pepper jacket as an instrument by which I may gain attention. When wearing it, I am hard to miss. The jacket is bright, flashy-blue, and very quickly identified with the Beatles Sgt. Pepper album and persona associated with that album.

Originally purchased and tailored for a “50 Year Celebration” of the album, I have since worn it at many concerts and other events.

But my wife posits that all clothing is social costuming.

Much like choosing which jewelry to wear for the day, clothing is also a choice. In either case, there is consideration of how one wants to present themselves.

When attending a job interview, one may wear business formal attire so as to assert themselves as professional.

When attending a wedding one may take care that they do not “upstage” the bride and groom. This costuming effect is to characterize oneself as being socially discerning.

Yet another example of social costuming is the act of wearing clothing, such as t-shirts, that have messaging or logos printed on them. Such folk seem to want to be identified with a cause or movement.

I quickly acknowledge that there are circumstances in which people, due to lack of resources, or perhaps situation-specific influences, cannot wear what they might prefer. These situations include uniforms for work.

Yet still, some people will wear their work uniform outside of the work situation.

I assume they do so that I, and others will associate them with that work environment.

So, it does seem that my wife is correct, most, if not all, clothing is a social costume.

But please be relaxed, if you invite me to your wedding, I will not wear the Sgt. Pepper jacket. I will wear clothing that presents me as appropriately exuberant for your wedding day.

Neither will I wear my jacket to your Christmas Party, church meeting, or baptism.

It just seems that ecclesiastical circumstances are not the appropriate venue for personality excess.

But concerts, festivals, social situations in which personality excess is not only permitted but encouraged, yeah, you can expect the jacket.

Now, if only I could fit into it as I did when I first received it!

Apollo 10: The Charlie Brown and Snoopy Mission, May 1969

 

The July 20, 1969, moon landing gets so much attention that I thought I would give a moment of recognition to the Apollo 10 mission which originally had been chosen for the landing, but, out of a sense of extra safety, did a “dress rehearsal” for Apollo 11.

   The Apollo 10 Mission rounded the moon in orbit and performed some procedures and techniques which would be needed for the mission to actually land on the moon.

This mission took place May 18-26, 1969.

The personnel involved were :

Thomas Stafford

John Young

Eugene Cernan

Recognition also goes to Charles M Schulz for his artwork created for the mission.

The Command and Service Module was code-named Charlie Brown

The Lunar Module was code-named Snoopy.

The Lunar Module, Snoopy, just above the lunar surface. The craft descended down to 47,400 feet (about 9 miles) above the moon before returning to the command and service module during Apollo 10.  (Image credit: John Young/NASA)

As the world continues to explore and investigate space and it assets, I offer the official position of the United Methodist Church regarding stewardship of space…

E. Protecting Space

“God’s creation encompasses not only the earth but the entire cosmos, including space. Our charge to be responsible stewards thus extends well beyond humankind’s immediate environs and encompasses not only our own solar system but also other galaxies. Hence, we reject the exploitation, commodification and militarization of space. We express our hope that the exploration and settlement of space, including the moon and other planetary bodies, take place peacefully and cooperatively, and in such fashion that the benefits and resources of any further exploration and development accrue to all humanity.”

You can see a brief discussion about the Apollo 1o mission at this Youtube link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rq8cyvmJMNQ

Don't Have Unrealistic Expectations about the New Tax Relief

 

I don’

photo from america250.org

I don't intend to throw cold water on a warm campfire, but also, I don’t want folk to have unrealistic expectations.

The Tax and Spending Bill, passed by Congress and soon to be signed by the President, provides for tax relief for many people.

But please don’t expect thousands of dollars.

I provide a “copy and paste” of explanation from a fact sheet published by the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Delivers on President Trump’s Commitment to American Workers

• No Tax on Tips:
• Eliminates income taxes on up to $25,000 of tips for the 4 million tipped workers, boosting incomes of tipped workers by $1,300.
• No Tax on Overtime:
• Eliminates income taxes on up to $12,500 of overtime pay premium for the over 80 million hourly workers, boosting incomes by $1,400.
• Tax Relief for Seniors:
• Middle- and low-income seniors will be able to deduct an additional $6,000.
• No Tax on Auto Loan Interest:
• The average American family will be able to fully deduct auto loan interest for new American-made cars.

*end of “copy and paste”*

Please pay attention to phrasing such as

*Eliminates income taxes on up to $25,000: Regarding tips, tipped workers will see an increase of $1300. This is an increase of $25 per week.

*Eliminates income taxes on up to $12,500: Regarding overtime, This increase of $1400 results in an extra $27 per week.

*deduct an additional $6,000: Regarding tax relief for seniors, this deduction of $6000 will result in an extra $12 per week for someone with a 10% tax rate.

For realistic and accurate expectations and planning, I suggest you consult your tax preparer to know how these policies will benefit you personally.

For more information you can visit the official Ways and Means website:

https://waysandmeans.house.gov/2025/07/03/passed-the-one-big-beautiful-bill-the-largest-tax-cut-in-american-history/

The 1964 Transformation of the Democratic Party

 

Picture from LBJ Presidential Library

I post this writing as a citizen expressing my own personal views which are not to be construed nor inferred  as representing any organization or ministry of which I may be involved.

Being the ever-diligent student of history and political realignments as I am, I cannot refrain from commenting on a recent meme I have seen on Facebook.

The meme reads something like “It was Democrats that fought against abolition and Republicans that freed the slaves.”

This is one of the many circumstances in which the words are technically correct while the lack of proper context is (probably intentionally) misleading.

For those that may be old enough to remember, lived through, personally observed the height of the Civil Rights era, we know what a political tectonic shift occurred the moment Lydon Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

It was reported, though I cannot find any credible evidence of the statement, that Johnson said “We have lost the South”. I believe that to be true whether Johnson said it or not.

The South, former Confederate states, upon LBJ’s signature on the Civil Rights legislation, immediately disengaged from the Democratic Party.

In short, the Democratic Party of the last sixty years is substantially different in policy than it had previously been before the Civil Rights Act.

Unlike meme posting influencers and manipulators of political emotion, I provide a deliberative and objective study on the matter by Ilyana Kuziemko  (Princeton) and Ebonya Washington (Columbia).

Their conclusion of the study states…

“The exodus of Southern whites from the Democratic Party is one of the most transformative, and controversial, political developments in twentieth-century American history. Using newly available data, we conclude that defection among racially conservative whites just after Democrats introduce sweeping Civil Rights legislation explains virtually all of the party’s losses in the region. We find essentially no role for either income growth in the region or (non-race-related) policy preferences in explaining why Democrats “lost” the South.”

Again, the Democratic Party of the last sixty years is substantially different from

the residual party of the Confederacy which existed before 1964.

For those of you who may care enough, I provide the link to the complete study by Kuziemko and Washington here:

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20161413

Why Did the Democrats Lose the South? Bringing New Data to an Old Debate - American Economic Association

Looking Beyond Scam-Nut Friends for Facts

 

 

Yet another encouragement regarding fact-checking…

In early October of 1969 I was having a discussion with a friend who insisted that the World Series would run the full seven games. This friend asserted that “it’s all a scam to get as much money out of people as possible”. And so, my friend insisted that “every World Series runs the full seven games”.

   Seriously skeptical of that notion, I referred to my 1969 World Almanac in which I could read previous years results of Series played.

I discovered that while there had in fact been many series that went the full seven, not nearly enough had done so to conclude that it is all “a scam”.

If I had not had my almanac, I would not have been in a credible position to refute my friend with any evidence or confidence.

It is easy for people, talking off the tops of their heads, speaking in a manner which is driven by emotionalism rather than reason, to make a statement that bears no resemblance to reality.

Today I see such behavior on social media.

And so, I offer to people who care about the facts the following links of credible and original sources:

Regarding White House news…

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/news/

 

Supreme Court Opinions…

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/24

 

Congress…

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/active_leg_page.htm

 

https://www.congress.gov/browse

 

Economic information…

 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/

 

Executive orders…

https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders

 

Want to know if the Constitution actually says what people say it says?...

 

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

 

I fully acknowledge that these sources may be cumbersome and take some time to read, but that is the only way for a responsible citizen to know for a fact the actions that were taken, decisions made, and conditions in play.

Otherwise, you’ll just be relying upon your favored news cast, social media, or “1969 World Series scam-nut” friends to tell you what to think.

A Focus on the Twenty-Seven Grievances in the Declaration of Independence

 

Picture from https://allthingsliberty.com/2019/07/the-declaration-of-independence-the-twenty-seven-grievances/

Independence Day, the Fourth of July provides me with an opportunity to, once again, express my sense of patriotism, which is seated on three documents: the Declaration of Independence, The US Constitution, and the Gettysburg Address.

I wish to take this opportunity to focus more deliberately on the true nature of the reasons for Independence.

I begin with political philosopher John Locke, who lived well before Thomas Jefferson…

From Second Treatise by John Locke published 1689…

“ It is evident that all human beings—as creatures belonging to the same species and rank and born indiscriminately with all the same natural advantages and faculties—are equal amongst themselves.”

What also is evident is that neither Thomas Jefferson, nor the American colonists created this idea.

All the lofty ideas at the fore of the Declaration, of which we are so proud were actually in existence and well-known long before the Declaration was written.

Equality of individuals is not a uniquely American idea.

But where the words of the Declaration get personal, and truly relevant to America are found in the twenty-seven listed grievances. These grievances give us a much more accurate idea of the motivations and reasons for the colonists to separate from England.

It was not so that “We can do things our own way” or exercise “anarchical, indiscriminate license”.

It was to be released from the dangers, indignities, and atrocities which had been perpetrated by a tyrannical King George III.

This section is preceded by the sentence “To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

I refer the reader to a good explanation of each of the grievances as presented by the National Park Service at this website:
https://www.nps.gov/fost/blogs/the-declaration-of-independence-what-were-they-thinking.htm

Of interesting note, none of the twenty-seven grievances accuse King George III of interfering with the religious life of the colonists.

Though equality of all individuals is not a uniquely American idea in all of history, all the documents on which my patriotism is seated aspire and commit to that notion.

Let us not stop making it a reality.

The Originally Ratified Constitution Did Not Provide the Bill of Rights

 

As I am an enthusiast of American history and founding documents, my wife is always diligent about discovery of items that relate to such interests.

Here I picture a coffee mug upon which is printed the first ten amendments to the Constitution, also known collectively as “The Bill of Rights”.

According to the National Archives the first ten amendments to the Constitution were ratified and became effective on December 15, 1791.

It is worth noting that the U.S. Constitution was originally ratified June 21, 1788.

This means that a call by some to return to the original Constitution would then leave us without a First Amendment which protects speech, religion, assembly and other rights. Such a return would leave us without a Second Amendment…well, you get my point.

Ah…in light of this awkward piece of information, I suppose the call would then be modified to original Constitution with the Bill of Rights.

But then what shall we do with that pesky (and original) Article V which provides for the amendment process. Shall we amend it to allow only the first ten amendments?

But, if limited to only those ten, we could not further be able to amend the amendment Article itself.

Perhaps those who call for a return to the original Constitution could enlist M.C. Escher to help them create something more toward their intentions!

It appears, committed to living in the practical world, that we are stuck with what the framers of our government intended: a constitution which could provide an orderly governance yet also be responsive to the needs of a growing population and changing of culture.

And for those truly eager to become acquainted with the Constitution, check out Article VII, the second clause (or paragraph).My accolades to Secretary William Jacson.

Resist the Temptation to Oppress the Non- Christian

 

As a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ, it troubles me that there is language and intent in the current social mindset to “eradicate Anti-Christian Bias” through government action.

I shall soon make my case that it is the church, through invitation, not government, through coercion, that makes the case for Jesus.

But to begin. I shall assert that atheists, Buddhists, Muslims, and all others who do not subscribe to Christian belief have an absolute, fundamental 1^st Amendment right to their conscience and their speech. Also absolutely true is that none of us have a right to extend our conscience and speech into actions or incitements that may cause harm to ourselves, others, or property.

But for sure, people are entitled by the 1^st amendment to express however much anti-Christian bias they may hold.

I base and center my approach to establishing a Christian society on the Gospel of Matthew 28: ¹⁸ Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. ¹⁹ Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, ²⁰ and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Please note: Jesus was not standing before the Roman Emperor, nor the Roman Senate to give this commission. He was not attempting to recruit government to create a “Christian” form of government or nation. He was standing before and speaking to his disciples, the founders of the church. Jesus was giving charge to disciples and the church to:
Make disciples (not reluctant victims of indoctrination)

Baptize

      In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (not in the name of the government or the nation).

Teach them to obey everything he commanded. (Not what Moses commanded, not what Paul would later write, not what a self-aggrandizing, inhospitable religious movement would seek).

Our best approach to being and making disciples and teaching the commands of Jesus is to invite people to hear, read, and learn about Jesus through the gospels, or as I like to call them…biographies of Jesus.

The Christian faith is by personal invitation, not government coercion or indoctrination, or even proclamation.

Far from attempting to eradicate anti- Christian bias by persecution of those that hold such bias, we, as Christ-followers, the church, should be out front, in actions of hospitality, defending those who think differently.

When Jesus was approached by Pharisees and Sadducees with questions, he had discussions with them. He reasoned with them. He did not call upon the Roman Emperor or Senate to silence his opposition. He, through discussion, made his case himself.

And I remind Christians who meet in houses of worship, often with much acreage of play area, picnic area, that you do not pay property tax on that real estate.

And in any county in Indiana (and probably all across the nation) there is much  church real estate exempt from taxation.

In fact, because your church is contributing no revenue to the county budget, that means that others in the county actually pay more in taxes. In a very real sense, atheists and others are subsidizing your church and ministries.

It is not those with anti- Christian bias that are burdening Christians and churches. It is churches that are imposing burden on non-Christians.

Churches should realize this fact and, with a sense of humility, be thankful to people in the community that they don’t launch a class action lawsuit to have churches actually pay taxes to support law enforcement, fire protection, maintenance of streets, and all other services of which churches benefit.

If we, as Christians and churches, cannot make the case for Jesus without government coercion, then maybe there is no case to make.

I call upon Christians and churches to be faithful to Jesus rather than chasing the emptiness of coerced indoctrination.

I call upon Christians to behave in ways that show hospitality to others rather than hostility.

I call upon Christians and churches to follow through on the teachings of Jesus.