Author: Ray McAllister

  • In six states, religious day care centers avoid regulation at peril of children

    By Ray McAllister, PhD

    [dc]J[/dc]uan Cardenas enrolled his one-year-old child, Carlos, in a Christian daycare in Indianapolis, Indiana.  Soon after he began attending, he began to notice problems.  In February 2012, he went to pick up his child and the lights were out.  He mentioned it to the officials. Their response was to ask him if he wanted to pay for the lights.  He immediately decided to remove that child from the daycare, but before he could enroll Carlos somewhere else, drowned in the church’s baptismal font.  Juan tried to take legal action against the daycare and sought to file criminal charges but could not do so because the religiously-based daycare was considered a “ministry” and was exempt from the requirements that secular day care centers must follow.  The local prosecutors called the death a tragedy, not a crime.  They declared the problem a licensing issue and said that one could not hold any individual responsible for the general lack of supervision.  The Indiana Child Care Licensing Division, though, did prevent that daycare center from receiving any federal money.  The case never made it to court as a Juan Cardenas reached a settlement with the parties involved.

    Sadly, in some states, religious day care centers have managed to escape state regulation and children have been found wandering outside the school due to lack of adequate supervision.  In some cases, children have sustained injuries such as concussions or broken bones, and parents have had little recourse.

    Indiana is one of six states, including Alabama, Missouri, Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia that allow religious day care centers to operate without license or regular inspections.  Religious groups in these states have fended off litigation by arguing that the separation of church and state concept prohibits the government from regulating such institutions.  Dan Zacharias, head of the Old Dominion Association of Church Schools, often represents religious day care centers and has garnered support through a slippery-slope argument.  “Religious-exempt daycares are in my opinion among the safest and yet there’s a big push for greater control,” he told the Virginia-Pilot. “Our fear is once that’s established, that can be used to control other things.”

    This approach needs to be reconsidered.

    A Look at the Bible

    What does the Bible say about these types of situations?  There may not be direct guidance concerning religious day care centers, but there are clear principles that are easy to follow when understood correctly.

    First, there is Mark 7:10-13.  Here, Jesus addresses an aspect of inconsistency in the religious leadership of his time and place.  Jesus notes in verse 10 that Moses commanded the Israelites to honor their parents, but that some have found a loophole to avoid honoring their parents by saying that what gift might rightfully belong to the parents is “corban,” meaning devoted to God.  This way, one would not be as responsible for taking care of parents in need – after all, they could claim that God had first rights to whatever they would give their parents.

    This concept may be a little difficult to comprehend, so let’s unpack it.  When Jesus was on the cross, his mother was, by then, a widow.  In John 19:26, 27, Jesus entrusted his mother into the care of John, one of Jesus’ disciples.  This shows that Jesus, even in His act of redeeming the world, did not neglect His parents in the name of religion.

    Secondly, to understand what “corban” really means, one must look at the book of Leviticus.  “Corban” is a Hebrew word used in Leviticus 1, in verses such as verse 2, and it refers to, simply, an offering.  This type of offering would be a gift sacrifice someone would bring to the altar and offer for God.  While English translations do not use the word “corban,” in general, in these passages, that is the word in the Hebrew.  Apparently, people in Jesus’ day found ways to avoid taking responsibility for parents by declaring their goods as “corban,” and so such goods would be offered to God, supposedly, instead.  Jesus condemned this practice in Mark 7:10-13, describing it as a way to avoid concerning oneself with matters of human rights.

    Another concept to consider is that of blemish-free sacrifices.  In many places in Leviticus, it is said that an offering must be without blemish, or defect. (Leviticus 1:3, 10)  This shows that what one gives in the name of God should be the best possible.  If one is taking care of children in the name of God, that care should be the best possible.  The establishment should be staffed with enough people to adequately see to the needs of the children, and children should never be put in danger.  The safety guidelines for daycare centers, when followed, do reduce the probability of tragedies taking place such as the one that Juan Cardenas faced.

    Implications

    The above information has broad implications when one considers the issue of religious day care centers and compliance with safety guidelines.  Anything done in the name of God must be conducted with the maximum level of quality and perfection.  It dishonors God to have His name attached to an establishment that endangers children.  Even though money can be saved by having a daycare center understaffed, the cost to the reputation of the church and Christianity is much greater.  People begin to wonder if this God and His people are really legitimate.

    Secondly, there may be a need for some sort of external regulation of religious daycare centers.  If a religious family was starting a car factory, few people would take seriously the idea that they should be allowed to ignore EPA and safety guidelines because the company is religious.  While the government might not restrict that company’s right to put Bible verses in the owner’s manuals, the factory should still follow the guidelines for safety and environmental awareness that everyone else must follow.

    This said, I would be willing to have religious institutions given the chance to develop their own internal regulating systems – and in the case of Indiana, a number of ministry day care centers, many raised their standards of care after the Cardenas case.  The vast majority of states do not seem to see a religious liberty conflict in requiring religious day care centers to be licensed and follow the same rules the other centers follow.  There could be extra material added to the secular guidelines requiring that what is taught at those centers not be analyzed or judged.  In the interest of the safety of the children, day care centers, many of which do accept government funding, should be subject to the same licensing guidelines, safety rules, and random, unannounced inspections that other daycare centers must face.   If religious institutions, that are supposed to be morally grounded enough to not need the government’s watchfulness, prove themselves unable or unwilling to live up to that standard, then their special freedom must be called into question.

    On a common-sense level, it does not seem fair for an institution to receive government money without government regulation.  If a daycare wishes to function without a license, and the state will not stop this, that daycare should not be receiving money from the state. “A simple way to shield from government overreach is to say no to taxpayer dollars,” notes Dan Zacharias. “It boggles my mind why some religious daycares want to take federal money.  It holds us accountable.”

    In addition, honesty must be enforced.  Parents should be notified if a religious daycare center is unlicensed and be able to trust that the place is well-staffed and will protect the safety of their children. Parents should be educated on how to check to make sure a daycare center, religious or secular, is complying with safety guidelines.

    Ultimately, religious institutions must remember that their religiosity is not an excuse to get around the law, but a call to follow standards greater than any human law.  In so doing, all will see the love of Jesus truly manifest through His followers.

     

     

    For more information:

    Religious day cares get freedom from oversight, with tragic results,” – Amy Julia Harris, Reveal News, April 12, 2016

    https://www.revealnews.org/article/religious-day-cares-operate-with-little-oversight-and-accountability/#article

    Toddler’s death in church day care reveals gaps in Indiana child care laws,”Robert King, Alex Campbell and Marisa Kwiatkowski, Indy Star, Nov. 4, 2017

    Religious day cares avoid licensing in Virginia, but many still take government subsidies,” Katherine Hafner, The Virginian-Pilot,  November 21, 2017.

     

    Dr. Ray McAllister is passionate about his relationship with God.  He enjoys spending time in prayer and Bible study, writing poetry, and serving others. Dr. McAllister is totally blind, and in 2010 was the first blind person to earn a Ph.D. from the seminary at Andrews University and the first totally blind person in the world to earn a doctorate in Hebrew Scriptures.  He teaches distance education religion classes for Andrews University and works as a licensed massage therapist in Michigan. In July 2016, Dr. McAllister and two other visually impaired Biblical scholars received the National Federation of the Blind’s Jacob Bolotin Award for their work making Biblical language materials accessible to the blind.  Dr. McAllister sees his blindness as an opportunity to more deeply see the beauty of God’s love and guide others to do the same.

  • Should the church take sides in military conflict?

    Should the church take sides in military conflict?

     

     

    By Ray McAllister, PhD –

    Your church group has been asked to have a special prayer for a member who will be going away to serve in the military overseas.  How should your church respond to this request?  Even if your denomination supports military service, it isn’t always easy to know how to handle these situations on a case-by-case basis.  In the next few paragraphs, I will explore this issue and apply Biblical principles. 

    Biblical Principles

    In considering Biblical principles concerning faith and military service, the many wars the ancient Israelites fought must come to mind.  There is even 1 Samuel 15 when King Saul loses the kingdom over his failure to completely follow through with God’s command to annihilate all the Amalekites.  It would seem, here, that God can be in favor of some military activity, at least in some instances.

    There are many factors that one must also consider.  First, Israel, then, was a theocracy.  This meant that God would directly give commands, and the nation, which indeed was “under God,” would obey those commands.  It is difficult to make a case that any nation, today, is a theocracy as ancient Israel was, then.  Secondly, when Jesus came, we don’t find Him going and healing all the wounded Roman soldiers.  He tended to stay away from politics, suggesting that He had a broader dream that God’s true followers would change the world by other means.

    To understand why this issue could have such a wide range of answers in the same Bible, it is important to look at the first two battles faced by the nation of Israel, seen in Exodus 14 and 17.  In Exodus 14, the Egyptians are ready to conquer the Israelites who are waiting at the Red Sea.  As most of us know, God causes the waters to part, and the Israelites walk across on dry land.  The Egyptians follow them into the water.  Once the Israelites are across, Moses stretches out his rod and the waters return to their original behavior, thus, drowning the entire Egyptian army.  The point of note in this story is that the Israelites did not need to take up arms.  God fought the entire battle for them.  God did all the killing.

    In Exodus 17, the Amalekites attack Israel in the wilderness.  Moses answers by arranging a military response.  What is interesting is that the text does not say Moses first inquires of the Lord concerning this.  He did inquire of the Lord about a problem in Exodus 15:25.  Instead, Moses gathers the people together, and they fight.  God does appear to give a victory to the people when Moses intercedes before God on their behalf.  One must wonder, though, if God truly intended the people to take up arms and kill.  Previously, God fought for them.  The people, in Exodus 17, simply determine what should be done and do it.  The precedent God set was that the people were to rely on Him and not kill.  Once the people started fighting, themselves, God did acknowledge that and seemed to work within that reality, even commanding some wars, as noted above.  His dream, though, as described in Deuteronomy 7:19, 20, would be to keep Israel from having to do violence as He would “send the hornet” ahead of them to remove enemies.  Then, Isaiah 2:1-4 describes a time when weapons would be converted into elements of peace, and the people would not learn war anymore.  Could it be that war was something like divorce that was given as an option because of the “hardness” of the people’s hearts? (Matthew 19:8)

    Two other Biblical passages shed light on how one should see conflict.  In Joshua 5:13, 14, a Heavenly being appears to Joshua.  When asked which side the being is on, the being said, “neither.”  This being did direct the battle of Jericho, but the point of note here is that God, truly, is not on any “side” when we fight.  He simply wants His will accomplished in the end.

    Then there is Proverbs 26:17.  Here it is said that one who meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who seizes a dog by the ears.  Conflicts can be very complicated.  In my country I might be praying for a soldier to be given victory in a battle half-way around the world.  In that country, though, there may be Christians praying that their soldiers will be given victory against us.  It may, truly, be difficult to know which side is right, if any side is right.

    This may be analogous to a situation I faced a few years ago when a couple that my wife and I knew closely went through a divorce.  We were friends with both people.  There was one time when the woman complained that I seemed to be taking sides with the man during the divorce, based on how I was responding to them.  At that point, I actually had to ask for a few days of space from both people so I could redefine my boundaries with them.  I also apologized for the miscommunication.  I was able to determine new boundaries, and friendships were able to continue.  We could stand beside the two people, loving our neighbors as ourselves (Leviticus 19:18) without causing harm to either side.  We must be very careful not to allow ourselves to become entangled in confusing conflicts where both sides may be right, and both sides may be wrong.

    Final Analysis

    The above texts and discussion lead to a very simple conclusion.  We should always support the people who do military service without necessarily supporting the war.  The Bible does not out-right condemn war, so we should stand by someone whose conscience says he/she should serve in the military.  Nonetheless, we should support peace, ultimately, and work for God’s original goal of victory by faith alone.  We should not though take sides as a denomination in the actual war itself.  We may denounce evils that happen around the world as prophets as Amos and Jonah did.  We should be careful, though, when considering, as a church, taking action to support direct military involvement, realizing that many individual members will.

    We can support people concerning whatever they believe.  We can honor passivists and soldiers as following conscience.  We can pray that those who serve in the military be kept from harm.  We can pray that the goals of those who work for peace be honored also.  In so doing, we will show God’s love to everyone in this troubled world and lead people to a deeper understanding of the true peace of Heaven.

     

     

     

     


    Dr. Ray McAllister is passionate about his relationship with God.  He enjoys spending time in prayer and Bible study, writing poetry, and serving others. Dr. McAllister is totally blind, and in 2010 was the first blind person to earn a Ph.D. from the seminary at Andrews University and the first totally blind person in the world to earn a doctorate in Hebrew Scriptures.  He teaches distance education religion classes for Andrews University and works as a licensed massage therapist in Michigan. In July 2016, Dr. McAllister and two other visually impaired Biblical scholars received the National Federation of the Blind’s Jacob Bolotin Award for their work making Biblical language materials accessible to the blind.  Dr. McAllister sees his blindness as an opportunity to more deeply see the beauty of God’s love and guide others to do the same.

     

    Photo: DepositPhotos.com

    ReligiousLiberty.TV publishes articles that represent a wide range of views. The articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Founders’ First Freedom, its staff, board, or advisors.

  • Dangerous Money: Gov’t money to churches has strings attached

    Politician is a puppet and a hand is pulling him by strings. DepositPhotos.com /

    By Ray McAllister

    [dc]W[/dc]ould you choose to mount a sixteen-foot maraschino cherry on the roof of your church?  You probably wouldn’t, but would you consider doing so if it were part of a deal where your church would receive a large donation?  This situation may seem ridiculous, but many times money offered to religious institutions has very troubling “strings” attached.  This often happens when the money comes from government agencies. In this article, we consider two significant situations where this may be happening and lay down principles from the Bible that can guide one toward a wise decision.  Sometimes it may be wise to receive state aid, and other times, such aid would only place one in unnecessary bondage.

    Real Situations

    The first situation concerns guidelines that Canada is placing on religious organizations that request state funding to assist in paying for student internships under the Canada Summer Jobs Program.  Under the new directives, any church’s core mandate (or mission statement) cannot oppose access to abortion.  Access to abortion is interpreted, now, as being a right guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (Similar to the “Bill of Rights” in the United States.) Religious institutions who are morally opposed to abortion perceive this as a way to strong-arm organizations into supporting a pro-choice position.  Other people say that if one’s core mandate is to distribute Bibles, the issue of abortion isn’t relevant to the discussion.  The core mandate concerns merely passing out Bibles.  Opponents of the new guidelines are suing, arguing that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms also guarantees freedom of conscience.

    The other situation, in the state of Missouri, United States, is a case known as Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, which was argued before the United States Supreme Court in April 2017.  Trinity Lutheran Church sued for access to state funds earmarked for non-profit organizations that wanted to resurface their playgrounds with rubber from recycled tires.  The state argued its constitution prohibited state funds from being used for religious institutions.  The church contended that the function of the playground is secular as it is merely a place for children to play as they would in a public park.  The Supreme Court ruled that the church had the right to participate in the program, subject to its restrictions.

    Biblical and Ethical Guidelines

    Both cases concern the issue of how intertwined religious organizations should be with state agencies.  There are many principles that one can use when pondering these situations, and many of them are right in the Bible, which many of these religious institutions hold dear.

    Ezra 1:1-4 quotes a decree by Cyrus, king of the Persian Empire, offering funds to help the Jews rebuild the temple which had been destroyed seventy years earlier.  Since the Jews were part of the Persian Empire, this decree could be understood as involving state funding for religious institutions.  The Jews, in accepting this money (vs 5 and following) show that there can be a time and place for a religious organization to receive such aid.  It should be noted, though, that there was nothing in Cyrus’ decree that would be objectionable to the Jews.  There was no hidden clause about making offerings to pagan gods, for example.

    Then, there is Genesis 23.  In this story, Abraham negotiates with the Hittites to acquire a burial plot for his recently-deceased wife, Sarah.  Abraham outright refuses the Hittites’ offer to give him the land for free, and he pays the four hundred shekels of silver which the Hittites name as the price.

    A twenty-first century American may not understand the cultural reasons why Abraham would refuse such a gift.  In ancient Near-Eastern culture, though, if Abraham received that donation he would have been placing himself under the dominion of the Hittites.  They give the land, and he gives allegiance.  Even today many people are nervous about receiving large gifts from those they don’t know because of what may be asked in return.  According to Genesis 23, then, it may not always be wise to accept such donations.

    The story of Gideon contains guidance concerning what to do with people who don’t want to aid a cause.  In Judges 7 The Israelite leader, Gideon, prepares to lead his people into battle against the oppressive army of the Midianites.  In verse 3, God tells Gideon to reduce the size of the army by sending home anyone who is afraid, and 22,000 people leave.  Gideon, then, would be left with only the people who were willing and able to help.  He would be victorious with the small army who would support him.  There may be value in saying, then, that if a state agency does not wish to truly and unconditionally assist a religious institution, that institution should trust God to provide by other means.

    A final ethical issue concerns the use of funds earmarked for a particular purpose.  When I studied church policy in college and seminary, my class was reminded over and over that one is not permitted to spend earmarked money on something other than what it is earmarked for.  This is where the maraschino cherry example comes into the discussion.  If someone makes a donation to a church and earmarks it for the mounting of a sixteen-foot plastic maraschino cherry, with thirty-foot stem, on the roof, that church must necessarily spend the money on that specific project or return the funds.  If this means that the church is not eligible for more money from that contributor, then so be it.  Any other action is unethical.

    Money, today, may be earmarked for organizations with a particular stance on abortion.  Money may be allocated only for entirely secular uses.  Some scholarships are to be used just for non-religious degrees or for people going into a specific profession.  In such cases, using the funds for something different is unethical.

    The Practical Side

    American money bears the saying, “in God we trust.”  It seems that, often, the church lives by the saying, “in money we trust.”  It is not always wise to fight for money just because one is desperate for it.  Sometimes God can provide for a church’s needs by raising up leaders, like Cyrus, who donate unconditionally toward the church’s cause.  In other cases joining with a secular power could involve what 2 Corinthians 6:14 refers to as being “unequally yoked with unbelievers,” and that only produces chaos and bondage for the religious entity.

    If a church wishes to sue for access to funds, and if the church believes there is a justifiable, legal reason for those funds, it may be prudent to take the matter to court.  In reality, though, the church may have to decide if it is worth the trouble to demand funds from those who don’t wish to give them freely.  The church may need to prayerfully seek wisdom concerning whether or not it is Cyrus or the Hittites giving the money.  In reality, it is better to trust God to supply one’s needs some other way than to be stuck with a giant maraschino cherry on one’s roof.


    Dr. Ray McAllister is passionate about his relationship with God.  He enjoys spending time in prayer and Bible study, writing poetry, and serving others. Dr. McAllister is totally blind, and in 2010 was the first blind person to earn a Ph.D. from the seminary at Andrews University and and the first totally blind person in the world to earn a doctorate in Hebrew Scriptures.  He teaches distance education religion classes for Andrews University and works as a licensed massage therapist in Michigan. In July 2016, Dr. McAllister and two other visually impaired Biblical scholars received the National Federation of the Blind’s Jacob Bolotin Award for their work making Biblical language materials accessible to the blind.  Dr. McAllister sees his blindness as an opportunity to more deeply see the beauty of God’s love and guide others to do the same.

  • When Not to Tell the Story: The Ethics of Announcing a Religious Conversion

    When Not to Tell the Story: The Ethics of Announcing a Religious Conversion

    DepositPhotos.com / vodolej

     

    By Ray McAllister, Ph.D.

    [dc]C[/dc]hurches like nothing more than to have a wonderful and exciting conversion story to proclaim to the world.  What happens if proclaiming such a story puts lives in danger?  What happens when a person is put in danger against his will?  These questions have been at the center of a fascinating legal case, Doe v. First Presbyterian Church U.S.A. of Tulsa, (OK Sup. Ct., Dec. 19, 2017), involving a church that announced on the internet how one converted from Islam to Christianity.

    The Story

    Some years ago, a Muslim man, referred to as John Doe, moved from Syria to the United States.  While he enjoyed frequently visiting his home in Syria, he became impressed with the teachings of Christianity.  In 2012 he agreed to be baptized by the First Presbyterian Church of Tulsa, Oklahoma.  While it is that church’s policy to publicly announce baptisms, he was not officially seeking church membership.  Thus, the local church gave him their word that they would keep the baptism private.

    Shortly after the baptism, John left to visit Syria, with the confidence that his conversion story would not be made public.  Once there, he learned, to his horror, that the story was put on the internet where anyone, including Muslim extremists, could find it.  Within a few days he was captured, beaten, tortured, and prepared for beheading.  He managed to escape and return to the United States.

    He filed suit against the church for placing him in danger as they should have known of the dangers he faced if his conversion became public knowledge. This has started an intense debate over whether or not the courts have jurisdiction concerning the actions of a religious institution.  The Oklahoma Supreme Court, in 2017, concluded that the courts do not, but, in December 2017, the court reversed the decision, allowing the case to go to trial.

    Moral and Ethical Concerns

    While the legal implications of this case are staggering, it is important, first, to consider the moral and ethical issues raised.  One reason religious organizations can be granted such great liberties is that religious people are expected to abide by moral codes higher than anything society would impose.  People and organizations don’t always live up to these expectations, and this is where these types of situations happen.

    Firstly, there are Biblical accounts of religious people who did not encourage extreme public activity that might be good for ministry.  In John 11:53, 54, Jesus chooses to stay away from public places as the leaders were plotting to kill him.  There probably were people he could have served had he not taken this action.  In Acts 21:10-12, Paul’s friends, as well as a prophet, Agabus, discourage him from going up to Jerusalem where he would be arrested.  In this case, Paul chose to go to Jerusalem, but that choice was his.  His friends did not force that choice upon him.

    It is true that baptism is a public sign of conversion.  Matthew 3 records the baptism of Jesus in a public place.  It is noteworthy that the term “public” is open to interpretation.  In Jesus’’ day, it was not as easy to publicize to the entire world that someone was baptized.  It would need to be a significant case such as Jesus when the Gospel writers wrote down the story to be hand-copied for millennia.  Most of the time, “public,” meant, “before the group of people in that place at that time.”  Nowhere, for example, in Paul’s epistles, do you read, “And, brothers, I am sending you the list of baptisms from Corinth so you may read it and pass it along to the Christians in Galatia.”

    Only recently have we had the technology to effortlessly inform the entire planet of one person’s baptism.  It can be assumed, then, that all that is expected for a baptismal candidate is to have the baptism locally public, in the presence of that person’s congregation.

    Then there is Deuteronomy 22:8.  This obscure law says that a home-builder, in those days, must put a special rim around the roof so that no one would be held responsible before God if someone accidentally falls off the roof and dies. (People, back then, would spend time on their roofs.)  While the home-owner would not intentionally push someone off the roof, he could still be responsible for negligence if someone accidentally fell off.  This verse clearly shows that we must be careful not to set up situations where someone else might be placed in danger.  A church should consider this principle before endangering someone’s life by going public with a conversion.

    The final ethical issue to discuss concerns honesty.  A church may feel conscience-bound to tell the world of a conversion story, even after considering the above information.  In such a case, that church should make it abundantly clear to the baptismal candidate, before the baptism, that such actions will be taken.  Deuteronomy 27:18 says, in fact, that there is a curse that would fall on anyone who causes the blind to stray out of the path.  Misinforming someone concerning what actions will be taken could easily be compared with leading an unknowing blind person off the path.  Followers of God are called to be honest and truthful in all things.  Turning away from this policy in the name of publicity may not be properly representing such a God of truth.

    The Final Analysis

    We all know that religious liberty has limits.  Obviously, we cannot allow a religion to practice human sacrifice just because the followers believe it is required.  Society, then, must impose restrictions to keep people from doing great harm to others in the name of religion.  In all other situations, the majority of situations, people must be given the latitude to follow their religious beliefs.  It is, then, placed in the hands and hearts of Christians to live lives worthy of such latitude.

    As shown through the actions of Jesus and Paul, it is not up to the rest of the “group” to decide if someone should be put in danger by making a baptism extremely public.  If the individual being baptized wishes the world to know, that is up to the individual.  A church can still enjoy some publicity by using a pseudonym, as the radio program, “Unshackled,” often does when telling conversion stories of a particularly sensitive nature.  The publicity from that action is definitely better than the publicity of being known as an organization that deceives and endangers people.  By upholding the highest standards of morality, we will show the world God’s true love in the most powerful and real manner.


    Dr. Ray McAllister is passionate about his relationship with God.  He enjoys spending time in prayer and Bible study, writing poetry, and serving others. Dr. McAllister is totally blind, and in 2010 was the first blind person to earn a Ph.D. from the seminary at Andrews University and and the first totally blind person in the world to earn a doctorate in Hebrew Scriptures.  He teaches distance education religion classes for Andrews University and works as a licensed massage therapist in Michigan. In July 2016, Dr. McAllister and two other visually impaired Biblical scholars received the National Federation of the Blind’s Jacob Bolotin Award for their work making Biblical language materials accessible to the blind.  Dr. McAllister sees his blindness as an opportunity to more deeply see the beauty of God’s love and guide others to do the same.

     

    Illustration:  A Family Baptism at the Jordan River – DepositPhotos.com Stock Photography / vodolej