The value of a good name

By John Pierce

A biblical proverb affirms: “A good name is more desirable than great riches; to be esteemed is better than silver and gold.” (Proverbs 22:1 NIV)

Perhaps that’s why some parents go to great lengths to name their children. And perhaps that’s why some children complain about the names they were given.

The new pope chose Francis, a good name. Some lesser-known persons have changed their names to something they preferred over the given ones.

Then there are nicknames that are rarely chosen, often given spontaneously, and not always affirming of the person’s best qualities. But they tend to stick.

Names of businesses, organizations and communities are important marketing tools. Some go to great lengths to take advantage of a good name.

Many years ago the Vinings area became one of Atlanta’s most prestigious addresses. So home developments well beyond the popular and pricey houses near the Chattahoochee River were given names like Vinings West or North Vinings Estate. (Not that there’s anything wrong today with admitting that one lives in Smyrna.)

Just recently, according to news reports, the trendy North Shore community in Chattanooga has found its name on developments in Red Bank — a good ways from the restaurants, shops and condos along the northern shore of the Tennessee River.

And all around East Tennessee there are teenagers, male and female, named Peyton. It was an especially good name to drop on a newborn in Knoxville in the ’90s.

Sometimes children are given a name to honor a relative or someone who has positively impacted their parents’ lives or the world at large. Sometimes an otherwise good name is tarnished by the actions of someone with nothing else in common but a shared named.

The goodness of our names, however, is most often and closely tied to the reputations we make for ourselves. This is true of our given names as well as other ones we embrace — like Christian.

Will our grandchildren be embarrassed?

By John Pierce

My recollections of the civil rights movement of the ’60s are rather limited. I was sheltered from much of the reality and shaped by a social context that placed blame solely on “troublemakers” like Martin Luther King Jr.

Living in a community where African Americans were scarce and isolated led to little contact outside my small, white, blue-collared, baptized world. One of the few personal experiences with the struggle for racial equality was the minor inconvenience caused by curfews in nearby Chattanooga, designed to stem rioting.

We had to get home from K-Mart by the designated hour.

Of course, any effort to raise the visibility of discrimination was viewed as troublemaking, if not rioting. All blame, according to the familiar narrative, rested with those seeking equality, never those who denied it.

So while younger moviegoers gasped at the use of strong racial slurs hurled at young Jackie Robinson in the movie, 42, it was sadly not shocking to those of us who heard such insults and insensitivity in daily discussions decades ago.

However, I wondered how the grandchildren of those baseball players, coaches and executives felt about the ignorant and obstructionist ways of their forebears. Or how do the offspring of those who turned water hoses and billy clubs on defenseless black citizens in Alabama feel today?

Is “That’s the just way things were back then” enough of a response?

However, the more constructive question for us is what are we saying and doing today that might cause those who spill out of our family trees to shake their heads in amazement and shame at our ignorance and insensitivity?

Take a young person to see 42 or to visit a civil rights site in Birmingham, Montgomery, Memphis or Atlanta — and then listen. Listen carefully.

Expect to hear an incredulous questioning of: “How could people who claimed to be good Christians act that way?”

And don’t give some flippant answer in an attempt to justify such horrors. It doesn’t help as much as confessing, “I don’t know; I just don’t know.”

However, we must keep moving to the present tense. What am I saying and doing today that someone else will someday struggle to reconcile with the faith and goodness I claimed?

It is a question many dismiss with, “but this one is different?” And then “the Bible says” gets thrown in for justification, as if that wasn't used to justify bad behavior before.

I think about the three men representing the Georgia Baptist Convention, who a few years ago paid a visit to the historic First Baptist Church of Decatur, Ga., that provides a wide and wonderful ministry in that community. They warned the pastor that the convention would break ties with them for one reason only — because she was a woman in a position of authority reserved by God for men.

If the families of these men are not ashamed now, they should be (and more so should these men). But I wonder, what will their granddaughters or great-granddaughters think if they read the reports of that action years from now?

Sadly, so many examples could follow. We are much too comfortable in justifying prejudices and discrimination.

On the other hand, there are those who look back now with great pride at courageous and insightful relatives who stood for what was just and loving, even when it was against the grain of their culture. That must be very gratifying.

However, the wholly sufficient reason for doing what is right is because it is right.

To be found on the right side of history, when it comes to issues of justice and equality, is not some careful strategic plan to leave a good legacy or reputation.

But it sure doesn’t hurt if we stand for truth, justice and love — and those who follow are glad we did.

Those who follow

By John Pierce

While enjoying afterschool hummus at Mellow Mushroom with my daughter Abigail yesterday, she asked: “What African American became the next Major League player after Jackie Robinson?”

I’m no help with geometry and biology questions, but this kind of American history is well within my strike zone.

“Larry Doby,” I said. “He was signed by the Cleveland Indians and became the first black player in the American League.”

Always willing to give a bigger answer than the question, I added that his name is not well known outside of baseball circles. But he deserves more recognition.

Bill Veeck, owner and general manager of the Indians, bought Doby’s contract from the Newark Eagles of the Negro National League. Unlike, Robinson, he did not go to the minor leagues first.

Doby joined the Indians on July 5, 1947, less than three months after Robinson’s appearance in Brooklyn. At age 23, he faced the same taunts, threats and discrimination, including teammates who refused to even shake his hand. He and Robinson often talked by phone to encourage each other as they faced daily trials tied solely to their racial makeup.

Although an infielder, Doby moved to centerfield the following season where he would become an all-star — for seven consecutive years.

Not only did Doby demonstrate courage and discipline, and help bring about needed social change, he was quite the ballplayer. Along with teammate and great pitcher of note, Satchel Paige, he put on a World Series ring as the 1948 season came to an end.

He and Paige were the first African Americans to become World Series champions, and his series home run off the Braves’ Johnny Sain was the first for any black player.

As Robinson’s door of opportunity was opened by Branch Rickey, it was Veeck who brought the first African-American player into the American League and years later named him manager of the Chicago White Sox. Doby was second again — since Frank Robinson was the first black manager in the majors.

In retirement, Doby lived in Montclair, N.J., where his family enjoyed a close relationship with the family of Yankees great Yogi Berra. He once said that Berra was the first player in the American League to really talk to him.

But then he added: “Yogi talked to everybody.”

Doby died in 2003 at age 79. He left a good mark on baseball and the nation that he served faithfully in the Navy during World War II.

I know, Abigail simply inquired about a player’s name. But that’s what she gets for asking such good questions over afterschool hummus. History class resumes.

How conservatives can win the marriage debate

By John Pierce

While the news is buzzing about the first prominent professional athlete to reveal he is gay and the wait is on for the Supreme Court to rule on two cases involving the legality of same-sex marriage, public opinion is going in but one direction. And it is moving quickly.

Those who suggest a bias against social conservatives in such reports might consider polls taken by conservative groups such as LifeWay Research, tied to the Southern Baptist Convention. The evidence of a quick and sure societal shift is clear.

One may argue over a percentage point or two but, undeniably, support for legal equality for same-sex couples has grown and is growing at an astonishing rate. Also revealing, is the demographic breakdown showing that the strongest opposition comes from the oldest citizens. So we know how that plays out over time.

Also of note, geographically and religiously, the strongest opposition to gay marriage comes from evangelical Christians in Southern states. So all of this raises a very important question:

Do evangelicals and other social conservatives want a solution or just another losing battle that grants nothing but a sense of martyrdom?

I recommend an obvious solution. And here it is.

Devoted Christians (as well as those of other faith traditions) should readily acknowledge their belief that marriage is a spiritual commitment made in the presence of God. That’s why it is called holy matrimony.

Holy matters belong to communities of faith, not the government. Only someone who completely misunderstands either the role of government or church or both would deny such a conclusion.

So social conservatives have a great opportunity to take a strong stand for what is right — and have all kinds of folks shouting “Amen.” It is a position deeply rooted in the Baptist tradition that helped shape the American experience regarding religious liberty.

Simply demand that government get out of the marriage business — because holy matrimony belongs to the church (and other religious communities), not justices of the peace or any other government official. Bug out, Big Brother!

Then the discussion over benefits and rights for those couples entering into a secular contractual agreement can play out in the public arena and courts. It takes the whole question of “preserving traditional marriage” out of the public discussion. In fact, it does more to protect “traditional marriage” than anything resulting from courts, polls or protests.

Let the justices consider, debate and decide whether a same-sex couple in a decades-long relationship that involves shared home ownership and other exclusive commitments to one another should have the same government benefits that were granted to Britney Spears during her 55-hours of marital bliss or the many serial brides and grooms who trade partners like cars.

But don’t call any such government-issued license or contract something that is elevated to and makes a mockery of holy matrimony. Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious bodies are fully capable of determining their own rules for marriage.

Already one of heftiest books in most churches is not the pulpit Bible but the wedding policy manual. Churches can choose to marry or not marry according to their own interpretations of scriptures and any other rules they wish to set regarding age, gender, counseling requirements, cost, size of wedding party or tacky tuxedos.

Right now, there is an open door for conservatives to stand up for holy matrimony — by insisting that such an important spiritual commitment between two persons in the presence of God and God’s people belongs to the church not a secular government.

It is a simple and sure solution for those who genuinely want a resolution rather than continuing engagement in another losing battle in the public arena.

Conservatives can win!

Along with everyone else.

Evaluation without self-preservation

By John Pierce

“Remarkable.” That’s what came to mind when I walked out of the “God Box” on New York’s upper west side on a cold day late in 2001, following a conversation with Bob Edgar.

Edgar, who died of a heart attack yesterday at age 69, was general secretary of the National Council of Churches from 2000-2007. His associate, Pat Pattillo, a communications professional of high order and good Baptist whom I was visiting, arranged the conversation.

The National Council of Churches was going through a time of reevaluation as most organizations do following serious decline. But I heard something from Edgar that rarely comes out of the mouth of one who heads an organization.

“This may well put me out of a job,” he said casually and comfortably of the process. “Something new and different might come out of this.”

Edgar explained that the starting questions included: “Do we need to exist?” “Could somebody or something else do this better?”

It was not the first time I’d heard a leader say, “Everything is on the table.” But it was the first time I believed it. He spoke at depth about whether he and the NCC were needed and, if so, in what capacity.

Most often, organization introspection and re-visioning bring out self-preservation. Leaders are most concerned about protecting their positions, funding and influence. Behind-the-scenes as well as overt politicking kicks into high gear.

Those appointed to lead the process suddenly have new best friends — seeking assurance that no ax falls their way. Turf is fortified and protected.

An honest look at the organization’s structure and effectiveness gets clouded by those who advocate for one person or one cause at the expense of all others.

But I heard none of that from Edgar, the former congressman who later led Common Cause, a nonpartisan government watchdog group. He talked so openly and freely about how the organization might drastically change or cease to exist if another approach is deemed better.

There was no fear, just a wide openness to what might emerge. Only such an honest and risky exploration can open all of the possibilities the future might hold.

That was my one conversation with Bob Edgar. But it made quite an impression on me.

He comes to mind each time I think strategically about the non-profit organization entrusted to my daily leadership. And his words resurface whenever I hear an organizational leader say that “everything is on the table,” when in reality everything is done under the table in an effort of self-preservation.

Thanks for that needed perspective, Bob Edgar. Rest in peace.