Redecoration, A Model of Excellence

My lovely wife, Kathy, just finished, at least mostly finished, a redecorating of the President's office. She wants me to have a nice place to work. I am grateful. It is a pleasant place to do what I need to

do, and a comfortable place to meet with visitors.

The furniture was a gift from a member of our "Guam church." The plan came from Kathy and a colleague of mine, here, at PIU. In the picture to the right, my Virginia home is on the left panel and my new, Guam home is on the far right.

The wall next to my desk has pictures of family and a copy of my "Delivery Business" saying. The greenery is something that grows in the yard.



Most of my books are digital. Some are still in Virginia.
The shelf has a few text books, some books I have rescued from a library sale & various mementos, some left by the previous president, Dave Owen. I keep the three hats on the top to remind me that I need to be flexible--wear different hats--and because it saves closet space at home. :)

This (left) gives you an idea of the area where I sit. I'm using the desktop computer, on the little table, right now. My laptop sits on the desk.
More greenery in the corner (below).

The diploma from Liberty Seminary and the window treatment, Kathy made, remind me of an old song. It was the theme to a John Wayne movie. Anyone remember?

Our emphasis, this year at PIU is on excellence. Whatever we do, we should seek to do it with excellence so we can glorify our Great God.

Let's do it. Thanks, Kathy for setting the example.

September 2019

Why Do Good Ministries Often Have Such Small Treasuries?

Recently, a friend of mine, a person of influence in Christian ministry, wondered out loud, "Sometimes I wonder why in our rich Western World some of our ministries are constantly at risk - because of financial reasons."

I was a lead pastor for forty-two years. For much of that time, I was active in missions, Christian education, and other ministry ventures. My observations have often led to the same musings. I'll briefly share a few thoughts. I hope they will further a conversation.

I'll begin by sharing what I hope to avoid in this conversation. On several occasions, I have run across a bitter-spirit on the part of otherwise solid servants of Christ. I don't want to go there. Please don't let anything I say below lead you into that ugly state and please pray that I don't go there.

A Theological truth is foundational in this discussion, yet it is one that is often overlooked. God is in control. I reason from that reality to a conclusion. If God is sovereign, and if the work I am involved in is honoring to Him, then the fact that the ministry I'm involved in has fewer resources than it looks like we need is probably a reality that I should learn from. "Lord, what do you want me (us) to learn from this?" Over the years I have counseled many married couples with financial problems. Often it didn't take long to discover that the money was only a symptom of bigger issues. I don't think churches, mission-endeavors, Christian schools are immune to that syndrome. "Lord, help me to look deeper."

 The Church has plenty of money, but God's people, too often, are, like the unfaithful servant, burying it in the ground, instead of investing it to God's glory. Too many look upon their wealth as a means to play the "mine's bigger, nicer, prettier, or more-impressive" game with their neighbors who worship the god of consumption--conspicuous and otherwise. What would happen if Christians drove their perfectly good cars a year longer than they usually do and invested a year's worth of car-payments in the Lord's work? Make up your own paradigm for food, clothing, entertainment, etc. It may sound like I'm contradicting myself at this point. Is God in control or are individual Christians in control of their pocketbooks? The answer is, "Both." It is an antinomy that goes beyond this brief post. I appeal to the Apostle Paul as my precedent. He told the Philippians that "God would supply all their needs (Phil. 4:19), yet he took an offering from them to meet the needs of the saints in Jerusalem (2 Cor. 8:1-4). Was God not looking out for the Jewish brethren? It may not be a completely adequate explanation, but God chooses to use means to meet His ends. In the same way that people won't hear the Good News unless someone goes, no one will go if no one gives. (Rom. 10:15, Phil. 4:13-18)

Giving is a practice to be taught and promoted. People have said, "You can't teach an old dog new tricks." Well, I'm a proverbial old dog, yet I am learning some new tricks. For all of my career, I have been dependent on the gifts of God's people. In my new role, though, it is more-so. One of the tasks that make up my new role as President of Pacific Islands University is fundraising. A part of me approaches this responsibility in the same way a ten-year-old boy looks at taking a bath and putting on his Sunday clothes. "Do I have to?"
Yes, I do have to.
I'm learning, though to see this part of my job as more of a, "Wow, I get to!"
I've been reading a book written by an executive in a huge Christian organization.

God can fund His kingdom without our help. However, He chooses to make ordinary people His partners through giving. As we give our treasures, our hearts are drawn toward eternal things, and the bond of materialism is broken. As Matthew 6:21 reminds us: “Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. Fundraising is not a necessary evil. You are a holy intermediary, a matchmaker, to connect the intentions of God with the resources of the people of God. Giving is an honor. Inviting people to give is also an honor. Calling it a necessary evil is blasphemous. (Morton, Scott. Blindspots: Leading Your Team & Ministry to Full Funding . CMM Press. Kindle Edition.)

A friend of mine has a ministry of leading churches that have been established in the modern missions era, to go from being just receivers of the generosity of other churches, to become sacrificial givers to support the great commission task which is yet to be completed. As I look in the pages of the New Testament I don't see that God's work was supplied by token giving, like many in the West practice, nor by bake sales and other gimmicks to try to get money from the people of the world to reach the world. The widow with her two small copper coins is the model, not the rich folk who gave from their pocket-change (Luke 21:1-4). We expect sacrifice, and rightly so, from those who step into positions of service for the cause of Christ. Should the support of such service be without sacrifice?  Again referring the Apostle Paul, he praised the people of Macedonia for their sacrificial giving.

 For they gave according to their means, as I can testify, and beyond their means, of their own accord, begging us earnestly for the favor of taking part in the relief of the saints— and this, not as we expected, but they gave themselves first to the Lord and then by the will of God to us. (2 Corinthians 8:3–5, ESV)  

Far too many Christians, both in the majority world and in the affluent West have yet to learn the joy of giving. Those of us in leadership should not flinch from modeling and teaching this spiritual discipline. "God loves a cheerful giver." (1 Cor. 9:7-8) Let's spread the cheer.

Lord, it is not a class in which we want to enroll, but we acknowledge that you are in charge of our curriculum. When those of us who have been given leadership responsibilities find that the ministries we lead don't have enough resources to do what we think we ought to be doing, help us to learn. Bring us face-to-face with the realities, even if they are inconvenient truths. Teach us, all, the privilege of giving. May our, "How much do I have to give to relieve my guilt?" be replaced with, "How much can I give to maximize the impact that I, as your steward, can have, and in the process bring greater joy to me, as your Child, and to those with whom I am privileged to partner, and to bring glory to You? AMEN"

The Dangerous Edge of Satire

I don't read all of the Babylon Bee's political and cultural satire. I have friends who follow it closely; they post an informal version of the "Best of the Bee." I enjoy reading those.

The B, Bee is edgy in, what I regard as, the best sense of the word. If I start reading a B. Bee article and find it too obvious, I typically don't finish. In order to be really effective, satire needs to function close to the edge of believability. The question, "Is this writer really serious?" needs to stay in the air for a while.

So like most edgy things, that which makes it effective, also makes it dangerous. That danger is multiplied by the internet. Good satire will use subtle cues to indicate that the author isn't really serious about what he is saying, but is quite serious about what his satire implies. The "wink" has to be subtle or the whole thing ends up being a parody. There is nothing wrong with parody, I often enjoy it. It tends, though, to involve more laughter and less need for thought than satire. At the end of a good piece of satire, the reader/listener/watcher says, "I need to think about that. That challenged my preconceptions." The after-effects of parody are more likely to be recovery from a good laugh, and perhaps the need to repent for making light of someone or something. Satire can fool even an intelligent, well-read person. Parody will fool only the most simple.

The problem is all communication in the 21st Century, especially communication like this, is available to all people. The "www" does stand for something.

I'll digress and go down a detour to make the point. Twenty years ago, "David Howard, an aide to Anthony A. Williams, the mayor of Washington, D.C., used "niggardly" in reference to a budget." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_niggardly) Some people were highly offended, thinking or claiming that the bureaucrat was using a racial slur. Others, dictionaries in hand, pointed out that the word has nothing to do with race, its derivation has nothing to do with ethnicity, and to accuse the man of using insulting language based on a phonetic (no insult to the people of Phonecian ancestry intended)  was just plain wrong, and perhaps stupid. I remember discussing the matter with a friend. He maintained that he would never use the word. I maintained that it is a perfectly good adjective. We were both right.

When I'm with "my people" I can use code language, and satire is often based on code words and expressions. When I'm speaking with, or for, everybody, I have to stay farther away from the edge. I'll confess, I don't particularly like that. I absolutely need to remember, however, that while the Bible nowhere forbids cleverness, it does put the standard of speech as that which builds up, not that which causes rot (Ephesians 4:29). I remember a time I was preaching. I talked about some people setting fire to the church building. I thought my signals were clear that I was making this up, it was hypothetical. I was alarmed to find out at the exit, hand-shaking time, that one family thought I was totally serious. To say the least, that illustration didn't edify.

Am I encouraging folk to only use the most flat-footed prose? I quote the Apostle Paul in response. "Mei genoito, God forbid, may it never be." I am encouraging myself, and others who use the spoken and written word to seek to influence others for God and good, to be careful. Christianity Today published an article including a survey of Babylon Bee satires which people thought were serious. The article brought to light an area in which special caution, both for writers and readers, is called for. 

I am most likely to believe something 

outrageous about someone I already don't like. 

No satire intended, at all. Think about that.

And remember, even when we speak to our

own group there are often open-mics about.

Some Thoughts on Death and Funerals

I started writing a comment on a friend's Facebook post. He had linked to the blogpost below. Thank you, Bart. I realized, after I started, that what I wanted to say was way longer than a comment ought to be, so I decided to write my thoughts, here.

I don't know Chad Bird (When I mention "Chad" below, please don't confuse Chad Bird with my son, Rev. Chad Merrell, whom some of you know). Chad seems like a good guy, thoughtful, smart and passionate. He and I share a view that much that is said at funerals shouldn't be said. I have thought for a long time, that pastors miss a great opportunity to minister when they, essentially, mail-in their funeral sermon (fill-in the name of the deceased). Chad posted about Things he doesn't want people to say at his funeral. I felt led to comment.

In a 42-year pastoral career--extended into the new gig I have as president of a small Christian College (I spoke at the funeral of a staff member, here)--I have done my share of funerals. Though, since the church I pastored had a young-ish congregation for most of my career and was smallish for all of it, I've not buried as many as some other lifers.

I recall a couple of funerals of folk over 100, and a few with coffins the size of a big shoebox. I refereed family fights. Once I got "fired" before I did a service, because of a comment about a cat that I made on the visitation night. I conducted a funeral for an old recluse who lived like a poorer version of Miss Haversham, and one old gent who outlived almost all family and friends. I helped the funeral home personnel and the one attendee who looked capable of lifting anything carry the coffin. One of the saddest was a service for a lady who had gotten lost in the system and spent almost all her life in a succession of state mental hospitals. There was probably nothing wrong with her. I attended many other funerals. As a musician, my wife ministered at many more.

Most pastors miss an excellent opportunity to minister at funerals. Solomon tells us of the opportunity in Ecc. 3 & 7. Second to Psalm 23, the list of couplets in Ecc. 3 is, in my experience, the most requested passage of scripture. Though most refer to the "Turn, turn, turn" song, rather than the Bible.

It is poor stewardship to waste the opportunity.

As to Chad's "Don'ts":

He and I have some disagreements Theologically, though I sense we have more in common than divides us.

Chad says: Don't say:

"He was a good man. Don’t turn my funeral into a celebration of my moral resumé. "

In the histories of OT Kings, many of the kings of Judah are listed as "good." One should not seek his own honor, but bestowing it on others, as Jesus did toward John the Baptist, or Paul did toward Timothy and Epaphroditus, or John did toward Demetrius is healthy and good. I don't see why just because someone is dead this should be different. There is a lesson to the living in the good example of the dead.

As always, the Lord should be elevated. Part of that praise is for what He did in the life the deceased. I don't think David was altogether wrong in his eulogy of Jonathan, though he had to be creative with Saul.

 "Chad...Chad...Chad. I don’t want to be the focus of my own funeral."

This prohibition is a continuation of the above. On a professional level, I disagree. While a funeral message is for the living, it ought to be, at least to some extent about the dead. Later on, Chad objects to those who forbid mourning. I agree. He objects to the belittling of the importance of the body. Again I agree, with some qualifications. Just who is it that we mourn? Just who is, or whose is, the body in the casket? I think there is something wrong with a funeral when someone can attend and needs to look at the worship folder in order to know just who is being remembered. Yes, absolutely point people to Christ, but that is not incompatible with holding up the person being remembered.

"God now has another angel." 

Dead people don't become angels. Absolutely right, but is a funeral the best place to teach anthropology and angelology? Like Chad, I hope that the person leading my funeral, or the people asked to speak at my funeral will not draw their Theology from "It's a Wonderful Life." I don't recall hearing the angel line from the pulpit, though I'm sure it happens. If there is an open-mic time, it is almost sure to come out. What do mourners mean by that statement? If we can bridge to an affirmation that this life that we now live is not the end, we do well.

"We are not here to mourn Chad’s death, but to celebrate his life."

Funerals represent a time of contrast. They aren't just one thing. We tend to not do nuance well. Yes, we mourn, but especially at the death of a saint can we not celebrate?. At the end of 1 Cor. 15, Paul looked death in the eye--if not spit in its eye--and, in essence, said, "Nah,nah, nah, nah, nah!" "We mourn not as others who have no hope." I find the last letter from Screwtape to Wormwood to be one of the most beautiful pieces about death ever written. It is a word of victory, worthy of celebration. I think David's eulogy for Saul and Jonathan had that nuance of praise and sadness. Indeed the mourning is accentuated by the good qualities David observed in the father and son warriors' lives. A life well-lived has a heavenly quality. Celebrating that is worthwhile. Can we stop the reactionary pendulum somewhere closer to the center?

"Chad would not want us to weep."

This is not a universal sentiment. A horrendous example of the opposite was Herod's instruction that a number of the notables of Judah be killed at his death so mourning would be assured. I was privileged to conduct the funeral of a church member I'll call "Mary." Over the years she gave me various pieces that she wanted shared at her funeral. Most of them were hilarious. Though I am careful about surrendering control of a funeral to the dead person, I thought Mary's wishes were appropriate--certainly in keeping with the life she had lived. Christ was honored in the service. There was more laughter than tears, though they were also present. We had recorded the service to accommodate family who couldn't attend. I think 20 or so dvds were requested. Chad is right. Mourning is appropriate. "Jesus wept." is not only the Bible's shortest verse, it is one of the most profound. Jesus wept not only for His friend--perhaps not even primarily for His friend--but for the Romans 8 condition of the world that his friend's death illuminated. Every time we attend a funeral it is a reminder that the last enemy, death--the enemy of the Lord of Life--has not yet been put down.

"What’s in that coffin is just the shell of Chad."

Most pastors that I know, know enough about their Theology to speak with a measure of accuracy within their Theological tradition. One shouldn't be surprised or upset if the person conducting a funeral speaks out of his/her own tradition. There are Theological differences concerning Anthropology. From the open-mic, again, anything goes. Again, I ask, though, is a funeral the best place to argue the fine points of Theology--human dualism-monism, transubstantiation, consubstantiation (which Chad brings up in his article), etc.? Whatever one regards as the proper designation of that body in the casket is, one thing is clear. It's dead. In spite of the best efforts of the embalmers, it is no longer fit for life. Yes, we should honor that body. Yes, even if it is burned to ashes, or rotted to dust, it will be raised. But, unless we are soul-sleepers, or advocates of immediate resurrection, we have to know that some aspect of the person that used to be intimately united with that body is no longer there.

Chad closes his article with this line. I repeat it here and add my Amen!

 Let them hear the good news, especially in the context of this sobering reminder of mortality, that neither death, nor life, nor anything else in all creation, can separate us from the love of God in Jesus Christ, our Lord, for He is the resurrection and the life.

Being Reminded of an Important Point of Theology, by an Imam.

I still look at the world through a keyhole. In the sense of the flow of time and the scope of the world, I can only see a little bit at a time. As some of you know, in recent years, my limited gaze falls on the Island of Guam, rather than the hills of Virginia. The guy on this side of the keyhole is the same.

I just read about Abubakar Abdullahi, an 83-year-old Muslim cleric in Nigeria. Imam Abdullahi was awarded the International Religious Freedom Award from the U.S. State Department.
Over a year ago a group of Fullani herdsmen were wrecking violence in the village where Abdullahi's mosque is located. It is a scene that has played out many, many times in Nigeria. To protect them the Imam directed the fleeing Christians of the village into the Mosque. He then tried to talk sense and peace into the Fullani attackers. At one point he even, in essence, offered his life in exchange for those of "his guests." The attackers were frustrated with attempts to gain entrance and finally left. Two-hundred-sixty-two people were saved from murder, rape, kidnap, and forced marriage. 
I'm glad the State Department recognized Imam Abdullahi's heroism. I would love to shake his hand.

Too many of us in the conservative Evangelical tribe forget about a Biblical concept called "common grace." God pours out blessings, like rain (Matthew 5:45) on both good and bad. Likewise, because of the image of God that remains in people, in spite of the Fall, people, even those outside the fold of those who trust Christ, are capable of acts of beauty, wisdom, goodness, and heroism like that of Abubakar Abdullahi's action that saved the lives of hundreds. These expressions of humanity at its best, even in the lives of unbelievers, even though they may not recognize it, or even know it, bring glory to God.

You can read about Abdullahi's actions and see a video about him, here.


As much for myself as for you, let me suggest a quiz--of sorts--to see whether we fully recognize and rejoice in common grace.

1. When I read/hear about an event like Imam Abdullahi's rescue of his neighbors, is my first reaction "Yeah but," or "Praise the Lord."?
2. Do I look on those who are different than me as fellow humans, created like me in God's image (James 3:9-10), or as some kind of other?
3. Am I willing to engage in costly acts of kindness toward those who are not part of my family, community, faith, political party, etc.?
4. Likely the occasion to protect your/my neighbors from an attack from terrorists will not present itself to you or me. Do I, though, use the little opportunities, that do come my way, to "to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people"? (Titus 3:1-2)

I don't know about you, but I need to do some work before the next quiz.

Here is a brief article on common grace.

Praying for the President: Should I, Would I?

A neighboring pastor, Jerry Fallwell Senior, used to say that people in Lynchburg VA would either pucker (as in to kiss) or spit when they saw him coming. Clearly, our current President, Donald Trump, brings out those kinds of polar responses in the political social realm. I'll leave it to others to sort out which pole, or perhaps a mediating view, is right about the current resident of the White House. My thought today has to do with an interesting encounter another Virginia pastor had with Mr. Trump.
At this point, I'll quote from Tim Challies's blog. I had heard about Trump appearing before a church asking for prayer. It was Challies who provoked me to click and learn more.

PRAYER FOR THE PRESIDENTDavid Platt explains how he found himself praying for President Trump on Sunday morning. “Sometimes we find ourselves in situations that we didn’t see coming, and we’re faced with a decision in a moment when we don’t have the liberty of deliberation, so we do our best to glorify God. Today, I found myself in one of those situations.”

Platt found himself in a very typical pastoral situation, not that the President regularly appears in a church requesting prayer, but pastors frequently find themselves in situations when they have to make potentially important--even life-altering decisions in a very brief time. I have often been in these Nehemiah moments. You remember, don't you, when Nehemiah stood before the absolute sovereign of Persia. In the sycophantic culture of the palace, Nehemiah had been caught in what could be a capital crime. “Why is your face sad, seeing you are not sick?" (Nehemiah 2:2) Sadness in the monarch's presence was considered an insult. Nehemiah bravely summarized the source of his discomfort, the plight of his people, the Jews, who lived on the fringe of the Persian kingdom. I figure Nehemiah's senses must have been on high alert. The plight of his people was the result of the policy and practice of the Persian administration, and he was standing before the Supreme Persian. Nehemiah's relief at not being immediately dragged away was short-lived.
Then the king said to me, “What are you requesting?”" (2:4)
In that brief moment--that was all he had--Nehemiah prayed.
I figure Platt uttered one of those "Help, Lord!" prayers as he decided how to handle the request put before him. President Trump had shown up, unannounced, toward the end of a service, and requested that the McLean Bible Church have a time of public prayer for him. (It would appear from the report that the President's request was not disruptive--at least not to those other than Pastor Platt.)
I've not made requests before all-powerful Kings or had the controversial President of my nation appear at a service requesting prayer. I have, many, many times found myself in situations when I needed to decide fairly quickly, knowing that the decision wasn't completely black or white and/or knowing that either way I decided there would be consequences, some negative. Just off the top of my head here are some. Fellow pastors will note, "been there, decided that."

• Phone call from a funeral director: "Rev. Merrell, The family of Sally Jones has asked that you speak at her funeral." At this point the default, "Yes, of course." answer is on my lips. "Oh, and by the way Rev. Objectionable will also be speaking." Fill in the blank. Rev. Objectionable is a heretic, sexually immoral person, member of a group that is Theologically obnoxious, or someone who has instulted me and my church, etc.
• Walking into a hospital room of a person who has been diagnosed with a terminal disease. The family has been diagnosed with a sickness called "denial." In hushed tones they instruct me, "Don't mention that she has cancer." 
• In spite of my best efforts to set up policies and guidelines, someone or something comes along that doesn't quite fit what I had already decided. As I make up my mind I can already hear the protests, "But you didn't do that for . . ." The nuance that influenced my spur of the moment decision would be lost on my detractors.
• I wish I could more consistently take comfort in the knowledge that our Lord suffered at the hands of critics. "He hangs out with tax-collectors and prostitutes." Too frequently, my thoughts continue, "Yes, and they crucified Him."

I could go on, but I think I have made the point, at least one point, of this post. Church-member, your pastor is called on to make decisions that you will never have to make and often make those choices in a Nehemiah moment. Cut him some slack. More importantly, pray for him.

For what it is worth, I think Platt made the right decision. He probably won't read this, but I figure I ought to stick up for someone who is making a good effort to do the right thing in a turblent context. To those who think otherwise, I ask you to consider, would your objection still be there if the President were Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Sanders, or (fill in the blank with your favorite)?

I also was convicted by the news. I find it difficult to consistently pray for my leaders. Often mention of "Kings and all who are in high places" in my public prayers are most prominent by their absence. I need to do better.

Below is the link to a post in which Pastor Platt shares his thoughts. It concludes with a video of him praying for President Trump.

https://www.mcleanbible.org/prayer-president

BTW, a word of thanks to Denise Gregson for giving me a heads up about Tim Challies post. :)

Dealing with the Troubling issue of Child, Sexual Abuse from a Pastoral Role:

We live in troubling times. To use the old KJV language "perilous times." Part of the peril of our day has to do with the swirling issues in regard to human sexuality. Some of the dangers are obvious--there are those who adopt clearly wrong/destructive behavior and hurt not only themselves but others. On the other side is the reality that dangers lurk for those of us who are just trying to figure out what is the right response. How do those of us seek to proclaim God's truth and hope navigate these troubled waters? Some of us, who have reached a certain age, have seen the public and official agencies change views and policies. Some of these changes are for the worse, some for the better. Present attitudes and legal requirements concerning the abuse of children represent one area that has changed in recent decades. A case can be made that with the new abortion law just signed in New York, and the one being considered in Virginia, that our culture has forsaken its responsibility to protect the most vulnerable. I can't and won't argue with that, but that is not my purpose today.
The same bureaucratic machine that protects the right to kill the unborn, and perhaps the just-born, can cause a great deal of trouble for the pastor or other religious worker who is just trying to do the right thing. The Roman Catholic Church historically did the rest of us clergy a great service (though some would say what I'm about to say is a dis-service to many) by maintaining the sanctity of the confessional. As I understand it it is, "the absolute duty of priests not to disclose anything that they learn from penitents during the course of the Sacrament of Penance (confession)." Those of us who pastored in traditions that don't have confessionals generally adapted and adopted that general principle and applied it to matters shared with us in counseling or other pastoral ministry. Readers who are interested can search for ways in which this practice has been challenged in recent decades. It needs to be understood that while the general principle of pastoral confidentiality should be upheld, maintaining an absolute seal on information received in pastoral settings creates ethical problems.
In my pastoral ministry the expectation that I gave to people in counseling, etc. is that I will not tell/share anything that is inappropriate for me to share. The obvious implication being that there are some matters that I conclude should be shared. If the counselee is not comfortable with that assurance they can seek other counsel. We can talk more about that later. I have a different purpose today.
In my humble opinion, it is clear that pastors, youth leaders, and others who are likely to come face-to-face with child-abuse, or behavior that leads one to reasonably suspect that child-abuse it taking place be informed about what the law says about their responsibility to report.
My thoughts were jogged by two good articles that I read in the last couple of days:
What Clergy Need to Know About Mandatory Reporting, and 
What Churches Need to Know about Sexual Crimes.
The second of the links above is particularly helpful in that it contains links that lead to several databases of information. As usual Gene Edward Veith is helpful. Both articles point out that laws vary from state (or in my case territory) to state. Also, it is clear that this is an area of law in which changes have been made, not only in actual statutes but in the way courts are interpreting them.
The articles provoked me to check what the law says in my new home, Guam. I would encourage my colleagues to do the same in the place where they serve. 
I was reminded of a reality that I knew, but which is often not front and center in my thinking. For purposes of the law, a child (minor) is anyone not yet eighteen years of age. Even in the college setting where I currently work I on occasion deal with people who, for purposes of this law, are defined as children. 
The Archdiocese of Agana is currently mired in a horrendous clergy sex-abuse scandal. The problem is not isolated to the Roman Catholic Church. A pastor friend of mine is on the docket to testify about another pastor's alleged abuse of a teen church member. Keeping these kinds of problems in mind, one can understand the motivation for the portion of Guam's Child Protective Act that specifically states that clergy are not exempted from reporting requirements. Many would say that the consequences for failing to report are not enough, but they are serious enough to bring fear to my heart.

"Any person required to report pursuant to § 13201 who fails to report an instance of child abuse which he or she knows to exist or reasonably should know to exist is guilty of a misdemeanor and is punishable by confinement for a term not to exceed six months, by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by both. A second or subsequent conviction shall be a felony in the third degree. Fines imposed for violations of this Chapter shall be deposited in the Victims Compensation Fund."

I know there may be times in which conscience may compel one to "obey God rather than man," and face the consequences. That's not my point today. As I began, we live in troubling times. It is wise to know the lay of the land and give some forethought to what one will or won't do. If these thoughts put you on track to do that, you are welcome.