This weekend The Wall Street Journal offered Richard Land's analysis of the Republican primary field. The president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission delivered a grim prognosis. He thinks Giuliani's two divorces and pro-choice views will doom him. He doesn't fully trust McCain. He really doesn't trust Gingrich. He could vote for Romney, should the Mormon former governor clarify how religion would affect his decision-making. And Thompson has some promise.

I think the last couple hundred words of the interview pose some serious questions evangelical Republicans must answer.

Land argues that evangelicals will decline to vote for a Republican with liberal social views, even if the Democrats nominate Sen. Hillary Clinton. Many will stay home out of principle, Land says. He warns that such an outcome would doom the Republican Party all the way down the ballot.

The Journal's Naomi Schaefer Riley doesn't seem so sure. What if the Iraq War remains the dominant political issue in 2008? If evangelical supporters of the war stick to their guns, they would have a stark choice between Giuliani and Clinton — or for that matter, any Democratic candidate. The Democrats want out; Giuliani supports President Bush. So what happens in this scenario? Would evangelicals who support the war tolerate any candidate who promised not to immediately withdraw the troops? Or would abortion trump guns?

Here's another question: Would evangelical support for Giuliani on the basis of war signal a "maturing" of our political engagement and broadened concerns? Or would we betray the social problems that triggered our recent involvement in the first place?

Posted by Collin Hansen at April 30, 2007 1:18PM | Comments (23)

The New York Times has an extended piece on Barack Obama's faith, his church, and his relationship with his pastor, Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Wright has become known for his liberation theology, which, as Wright has applied it, some have called reverse racism.
Obama describes the differences in outlook he has with his pastor.

“Reverend Wright is a child of the 60s, and he often expresses himself in that language of concern with institutional racism and the struggles the African-American community has gone through,” Mr. Obama said. “He analyzes public events in the context of race. I tend to look at them through the context of social justice and inequality.”

The article's emphasis on Obama's relationship with his outspoken pastor is due to its potential political effect on Obama's presidential campaign. But the article does describe Obama's personal conversion: “He comes from a very secular, skeptical family,” said Jim Wallis, a Christian antipoverty activist and longtime friend of Mr. Obama. “His faith is really a personal and an adult choice. His is a conversion story.”

The article has less of Obama speaking about himself than David Brooks's column does. In the column, perhaps, we see Obama’s faith at work better than we do in the much longer piece about Obama and his pastor. Brooks says he got Obama to open up when he asked, "Have you ever read Reinhold Niebuhr?” Obama, it turns out, is a big fan. "What do you take away from him?" Brooks asked.

“I take away,” Obama answered in a rush of words, “the compelling idea that there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away ... the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism.”

Posted by Rob Moll at April 30, 2007 12:06PM | Comments (11)

I was away from home this weekend to play the organ for the memorial service of a friend's mother. When I returned home, I found multiple e-mails telling me that my friend Bob Webber had finally passed away after his long struggle with pancreatic cancer.

Bob taught many of us that God--not the congregation--is the primary "audience" for what happens in our worship services. He has now joined with the heavenly anthem in proclaiming, "Worthy is the Lamb."

CT will soon be posting an obituary on our website. And I'm sure others will want to join me in blogging their own memories of Bob. But in the meantime, here's a press release from Dr. Jim Hart of the Robert E. Webber Institute of Worship Studies.

[Full press release after the jump]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Noted theologian and author Dr. Robert E. Webber died yesterday in his home in Sawyer, Michigan, after an eight-month struggle with pancreatic cancer. He was 73 years old.

Dr. Webber was born in Congo of missionary parents, and was raised in the Philadelphia area. He earned the Th.D. from Concordia Theological Seminary. From 1968 to 2000 he served as Professor of Theology at Wheaton College, and was named Professor Emeritus upon his retirement in 2000. He was appointed William R. and Geraldine D. Myers Professor of Ministry and Director of the M.A. in Worship and Spirituality at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary in the fall of 2000.

Bob Webber founded The Institute for Worship Studies (now the Robert E. Webber Institute for Worship Studies) in 1998. The Institute for Worship Studies is a Masters and Doctorate level graduate school focused on the study of the theological, Biblical, historical, sociological and missiological foundations of Christian worship. The school is hosted by Grace Episcopal Church of Orange Park, Florida and combines distance learning with one-week on-campus intensive courses involving students, faculty and alumni from around the globe.

IWS Provost and President-Elect Dr. James R. Hart commented, "Bob Webber significantly influenced many in our generation with the understanding that worship is the key to the renewal of the church. We mourn the loss of our friend and mentor, but rejoice with him in worshiping the risen Christ."

Webber was noted for his numerous writings and workshops in worship and worship renewal. His books include such titles as Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail, Worship Is a Verb, Worship Old and New, Ancient-Future Faith, Ancient-Future Time, Ancient-Future Evangelism, Journey to Jesus, The Younger Evangelicals, and The Divine Embrace. He served as editor of the seven-volume The Complete Library of Christian Worship (Hendrickson, 1993) and was a regular columnist in Worship Leader magazine.

Webber leaves behind a wife, Joanne, four children, John (Isabel), Alexandra (Jack), Stefany (Tom), and Jeremy (Susie), seven grandchildren, and a rich legacy of friends, colleagues and students.

Memorial services will be held at Northern Seminary (please call for date, time and location) and at Grace Episcopal Church in Orange Park, FL on Friday, June 15 at 7 PM, during the June session of the Institute for Worship Studies. In lieu of flowers the family has requested that donations be made to the Robert E. Webber Endowment Fund at the Institute for Worship Studies, 151 Kingsley Ave., Orange Park, FL 32073, or the Robert E. Webber Center for an Ancient Evangelical Future, c/o Northern Seminary, 660 E. Butterfield Rd., Lombard, IL 60148.
Grace and peace,
Jim Hart

Dr. James R. Hart
Provost/President-Elect, The Robert E. Webber Institute for Worship Studies
151 Kingsley Ave.
Orange Park, FL 32073
1.800.282.2977

Posted by David Neff at April 29, 2007 5:08PM | Comments (11)

There are bands that have been around a long time, and then there's the Dixie Hummingbirds. James B. Davis, who died April 17, formed the gospel group at age 12 with members of his church choir.

That was in 1928.

Davis retired in 1984, but the group -- one of the greatest black gospel groups of all time, if not the greatest -- continues. (Some of the other greats, like the Swan Silvertones' Claude Jeter, actually got their start in the Dixie Hummingbirds.)

Most folks know the group's work from Paul Simon's 1973 "Loves Me Like a Rock." I prefer "Christian Automobile."

Posted by Ted Olsen at April 27, 2007 4:29PM | Comments (1)

"In order for Satan to establish his 'New World Order' and destroy the freedom of all people as predicted in the Scriptures, he must first destroy the U.S.," says a proposed resolution to be debated at the Utah County Republican Party Convention this weekend. "There are ways to destroy a nation other than with bombs or bullets. The mostly quiet and unspectacular invasion of illegal immigrants does not focus the attention of the nation the way open warfare does but is all the more insidious for its stealth and innocuousness."

Don Larsen's resolution calls for the county party to support "closing the national borders to illegal immigration to prevent the destruction of the U.S. by stealth invasion." (Sources: Deseret Morning News and Salt Lake Tribune)

My guess: No Utah County Republican Party Convention resolution will have in the past or will ever in the future see the media coverage that this resolution will see.

So here's the question: apart from Larsen's apocalypticism, if you believe breaking the law is sinful, then do you think that there is demonic involvement in illegal immigration? And if you believe that America's immigration policy is sinful, do you think that there is demonic involvement in the slow progress in changing it? Follow up questions: Do you believe prayer would change illegal immigration? If so, have you ever prayed about it?

Posted by Ted Olsen at April 27, 2007 3:55PM | Comments (8)

'Unisex toilets to tackle bullies' is the headline of a BBC story today. And, when you think of it, really, what could be more embarrassing for a bully than to be tackled by a toilet — and a unisex one at that.

Actually, the proposal is that England's rebuilt and refurbished schools should use unisex bathrooms (ah, let's call them loos like they do, since that's much cooler) with blurred glass walls, central sinks, and no urinals.

The Department for Education and Skills report explains,

Most anti-social behaviour occurs when pupils socialise and hang around in the toilets. To discourage this, along with provision elsewhere in the school for indoor social areas, the space within the toilet facility needs to be kept to a minimum, and hand-washing facilities should be made visible and potentially unisex by being moved out of the cubicle area as a direct extension to the circulation space. This also allows for passive supervision of the common areas from the circulation space, so that pupils can feel safe when using the toilets.

The report urges schools to lose loos' urinals because "research has shown that at puberty, boys’ use of urinals is problematic. The trough type in particular can contribute to a medical condition know as ‘shy bladder syndrome’." Elsewhere, the report notes that since urinals are cheaper than toilets, urinals may be preferred in some cases. (Some alternative floor plans include urinals.)

So anyway, I just thought the article (which I found on the BBC's religion & ethics news page) was interesting. I'm sure that some of the culture-warrior readers (those who use terms like "war against boys," "forced androgyny," and "feminization") will be interested. But since this is supposed to be a specifically Christian blog, I'd like to make some direct connection to Christian life, theology, or mission.

So here's the tangentially related question for you: Several verses in the Old Testament refers to those who "urinate against the wall" (or, to use the King James English, "pisseth against the wall" -- surely one of the favorite references for any grade-school boy in a KJV-friendly Sunday school class or old-school Awana program).

Most translations, even formal equivalent ones, have updated this as "men." But there are other Hebrew words for "men," and these cases the Hebrew really says "urinate against the wall." In each case, those who urinate against the wall are not in God's favor. It almost always looks something like this: "And it came to pass, when [Zimri] began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends. Thus did Zimri destroy all the house of Baasha, according to the word of the LORD, which he spake against Baasha by Jehu the prophet."

So what's the deal? Urinating against the wall seems to besomething that both Israelites and other nations did, so it's apparently not just a cultural thing. But if the Bible identifies you as someone who pees on a wall, you're in deep trouble. Does God prefer squatting? Will England urinal-free loos be more biblical? Help me, Old Testament scholars!

Posted by Ted Olsen at April 27, 2007 3:25PM | Comments (4)

Homosexuality. Polygamy. Nigeria. Islam. Church and state. Street violence. All this in a 430-word story. Here's how it begins:

Kano State government has ordered police to arrest five women, Aunty Maiduguri and her four women spouses whom she married with full celebration over the weekend, contrary to the Shari’a legal system being operated in the state.
Government has also ordered demolition of three theatres in farm centre, Kano including the theatre where the marriage ceremony took place. The theatre was host to the celerity marriage where an estimated 2,000 people attended.

Posted by Ted Olsen at April 26, 2007 12:01PM | Comments (0)

Politico.com is all abuzz (well, it has a news story and an op-ed, anyway) about John Edwards praying "in Christ's name" at a Nashville campaign stop after the Virginia Tech shootings.

"Does John Edwards include Jews in his prayers? Or Muslims? Or Hindus? Or any other non-Christians?" complains Roger Simon. "Edwards has a perfect right to pray publicly or privately any way he wants to. But people who are not Christians often feel left out of prayers like his." Simon also criticizes Edwards for not praying for gun control.

The original Politico.com news story is rather remarkable, detailing how a campaign stop to "roll out his long-planned agenda for revitalizing rural America" was transformed into a religious memorial service.

Posted by Ted Olsen at April 25, 2007 2:08PM | Comments (2)

Mexico City's decision to legalize abortion, and the local Roman Catholic reaction to that decision, is getting all kinds of press this week. But don't miss the other big religion story coming out of Mexico, which you're unlikely to see in your local paper. Compass Direct reports, "Local political bosses who had voted to expel 65 Christians from [the Chiapas town of Los Pozos] grudgingly signed an agreement yesterday to let the evangelicals stay in their homes. ... It remains to be seen, he added, whether the Los Pozos town bosses will follow through on the accord’s stipulation that they restore water lines and electricity cut off from some evangelical families since January 30."

Evangelical pastor and attorney Esdras Alonso Gonzalez tells the religion watchdog news service that (in Compass's words) "the signing of the accord could prove to be a watershed moment in Mexican human rights in that it sets a precedent for state authority to head off conflicts before they fester into decades-old, major confrontations."

Posted by Ted Olsen at April 25, 2007 1:02PM | Comments (2)

I just received an email from Arlene Sanchez Walsh, associate professor of Latino church studies at Haggard School of Theology (Azusa Pacific University). Like me, she doubts Pew's conclusion that otherwise acculturated Latinos may resist worshiping with non-Latinos. As she writes:

The study claims that Latinos are staying in ethnic churches and contributing to a unique ethnic resilience in American religious life. They don't account for generational differences, though. They do mention that even English-speaking Latinos prefer to be in ethnic churches, but when you see the nationality breakdown, Latinos with very deep roots in the U.S. -- such as Puerto Ricans and Mexicans -- rank pretty low compared to newer immigrants (Dominicans, Central Americans, etc.) among whom generational changes have not been as long lasting. Though Pew states that ethnic churches are not merely products of immigration or residental housing patterns, the numbers I mentioned above would give rise to the common-sense reality that Latino immigrants, especially of the first and second generation, prefer Spanish Mass and tend to live in areas that are Latino. You have to look at third and fourth generations to get at a larger picture of acculturation.

Arlene's point is significant, especially during the current national debate on immigration reform, in which some claim that Hispanics represent a cultural threat because they refuse to learn English and integrate into American society. While a surface look at Pew's findings on Hispanic churches could support such a view, as Arlene points out, a deeper look seems to reveal a pattern of gradual acculturation much like that of previous immigrant groups. Time will tell, but we should be careful about reading nativist fears into the Pew study.

Posted by Madison Trammel at April 25, 2007 12:32PM | Comments (3)

Of all the lines in the widely circulated letter against Richard Cizik's work on global warming, I found one section particularly surprising:

Cizik’s disturbing views seem to be contributing to growing confusion about the very term, “evangelical.” ... We believe some of [the] misunderstanding about evangelicalism and its “conservative views on politics, economics and biblical morality” can be laid at Richard Cizik’s door.

As I've said before, I found that surprising because most evangelical activists I know of have been eager to define evangelical theologically or sociologically and oppose use of the word as a political descriptor. But while you can talk about trends in evangelical political behavior (which is quite a bit different than talking about "evangelical politics"), I was stumped on what the letter's signatories thought evangelical views on economics are. Granted, 50 years ago there was a strong anti-Communist streak in evangelical Protestantism. But today?

Well, I just found an answer, at least in part, in the journal Social Science Research. (More after the jump)

In the June 2007 issue, Pennsylvania State University sociologists Jacob Felson and Heather Kindell write about "The elusive link between conservative Protestantism and conservative economics." For the full article, you'll have to pay $30. But here's the abstract (emphasis mine):

Research on the political attitudes of conservative Protestants has yielded inconsistent results. We know that conservative Protestants (CPs) tend to be more socially conservative than members of other religious groups and have tended to vote Republican in recent years, but we are less certain of their attitudes toward the size and role of government in matters unrelated to religion. Despite theoretical expectations and qualitative research supporting a link between conservative Protestantism and conservative attitudes about the size and role of government, quantitative work has failed to find a consistent relationship. The present study interprets conservative Protestant issue preferences in the context of research on non-attitudes, arguing that we should not expect ideological constraint among the less educated segment of the population. However, among better educated members of the population, we should expect to find ideologically consistent attitudes. Results from the General Social Survey suggest that better-educated evangelical Protestants are consistently more economically conservative than other Protestants. Among Protestants with lower levels of education, there is no consistent relationship between conservative Protestantism and economic policy preferences. Since the better educated are disproportionately politically active, politicians may be especially likely to pay attention to their interests. This may help to explain why the Republican coalition between social and economic conservatives has endured for several decades and shows no signs of abating.

Since I didn't pay the $30, I can't tell if the study took into account that the better-educated evangelical Protestants are likely to have higher incomes--something that would no doubt also influence their economic views. But the bottom line here is that talking about the "evangelical view on economics" is even more problematic than talking about evangelical politics. There is a group that is both evangelical and economically conservative. And certainly it would be interesting to find out more about that group, and whether its influence is proportional to its size. But please don't confuse the part with the whole.

Posted by Ted Olsen at April 25, 2007 12:00PM | Comments (4)

For observers of the Latino religious community, this morning's study released by the Pew Hispanic Project will hold few surprises. The survey of 4,600 U.S. Latinos found, among other things, that:

* Renewalist Christianity (including both Pentecostal and charismatic beliefs and practices) is more common among Latinos than non-Latinos.

* More than half of Latino Roman Catholics identify themselves as charismatics, a fact that is already changing the face of U.S. Catholicism and could have even greater impact as the country's Hispanic population continues to boom. (Already, about a third of U.S. Catholics are Hispanic.)

* Nearly two-thirds of Latinos worship in ethnic congregations, though not always in Spanish-speaking congregations.

* Latinos' political affiliation is up for grabs (with Protestants tending to be Republicans and Catholics tending to be Democrats) but most agree that religious values guide their political views and that politicians should express faith more often and openly, not less.

As I said, nothing too shocking. Pew emphasizes Latinos' commitment to charismatic faith and tendency to worship in ethnic enclaves as its most significant findings. No doubt both can be explained partly through demographics: About 62 percent of Hispanic adults in the U.S. are foreign-born. The strength of renewalist faith among Latino immigrants clearly reflects the explosive growth of Pentecostalism in Latin America and elsewhere throughout the global South (watch for our July cover story for more on this point). On the other hand, the tendency of Hispanics to worship with other Hispanics may change quite a bit as the Latino population assimilates. If Latino experience mirrors that of other immigrant groups, second- and third-generation Latinos will almost certainly find the home country-orientation of their parents' and grandparents' churches to be an uncomfortable fit.

I've asked a couple of Latino Christian leaders for their thoughts on the study, so we'll likely have more to post later.

Posted by Madison Trammel at April 25, 2007 9:30AM | Comments (1)

My aunt died yesterday, full of years and ready for eternity.

Peggy Neff was not one of the rich and famous. But though she was not rich, she had many things.

Aunt Peggy was an antique collector who, perhaps, didn’t know how to stop collecting. Her most notable acquisition may have been in 1950s, when she rescued a historic log cabin, which would have been otherwise destroyed, because it sat in the path of the planned Tri-State Tollway (I-294)

What do you do with a log cabin? Peggy had hers added as a new wing to her house. It made a very unusual living room.

With so many antiques, one would wonder about her last will and testament. Fine Christian that she was, she concluded that document this way:

I have now disposed of all my property to my family. There is one thing more I wish I could give them and that is faith in Jesus Christ. If they had that and I had not given them one dollar, they would be rich; and if I had not given them that and I had given them all the world, they would be poor indeed.

Ponder that today, and go read Matthew 6:25-33.

Posted by David Neff at April 25, 2007 9:23AM | Comments (2)

Yesterday, the Article VI Blog posted an interview with CT’s senior associate editor and book review editor, Stan Guthrie.

It was, actually, an interview sparked by an interview. Stan had posed questions to radio host Hugh Hewitt about his book A Mormon in the White House? (If you missed the original interview, you can read it here.)

The bloggers at Article VI are an evangelical Presbyterian (a Fuller Seminary grad) and a Mormon (a University of Utah law school alum). They’ve been blogging since April 2006 about Mitt Romney’s chances as a presidential candidate and the Mormon factor in American politics. (The blog’s title—Article VI—is a reference to the constitutional prohibition of a religious test for public office.)

In the 3,500–word interview, Stan gives an excellent account of his thinking about these issues.
I most appreciated this comment from Stan:

One of the things I have really appreciated since coming to Christianity Today is learning ... that you need to see how the life is lived. How [a religion’s] followers live the thing — Whether it is Latter Day Saints, whether it is Islam, or Episcopalians, or whatever. You can’t just get it from press clippings and references in books. You have to see how it is actually lived out in the real world and what the nuances are and what is stressed and what is not stressed. I think as that goes on with followers of Mormonism, that some of those stereotypes and concerns will be addressed. ... When you establish a relationship with someone, you have a much better chance of building a friendship and seeing things more sympathetically.

Evangelical Protestants will no doubt always disagree with Latter-day Saints about fundamental beliefs, such as the nature of God. But combine the scrutiny that would be given the life of a Mormon president with friendships such as the one shared by Article VI’s two bloggers, and we may someday find ourselves disagreeing less disagreeably.

Posted by David Neff at April 24, 2007 12:49PM | Comments (3)

Last week, we posted an article on daredevil Evel Knievel's testimony at the Crystal Cathedral, and the spontaneous mass baptisms it triggered. The Crystal Cathedral website now has video and a transcript of the event.

Posted by Ted Olsen at April 24, 2007 10:44AM | Comments (2)

Do a news search (Google | MSLive | Yahoo) on "Melissa Busekros" and you'll get several hits.

But what you won't get are many results from mainstream media sources. The Christian Science Monitor is one of the few outlets to pick up what is surely the hottest topic in Christian home-schooling circles.

The background: After the German government tried for two years to get Melissa's family to stop home-schooling the 15 year old, officials removed her from her home in February, put her in a foster home, and sent her to psychiatric treatment for "school phobia."

The update: Yesterday, on her 16th birthday, Melissa fled her foster home and showed up on her parents' doorstep.

Seems like a nice hook for a news story in the mainstream press, if they've been waiting for one.

Posted by Ted Olsen at April 24, 2007 10:28AM | Comments (2)

AFP goes with "Russia bids farewell to flamboyant Yeltsin." For Reuters, it's "Russians pay respects to flawed hero Yeltsin." The Associated Press (probably wisely) decided not to use an adjective. And it's the Associated Press that hits the religion angle the hardest:

Yeltsin, who died Monday at age 76, sometimes appeared at church services but was not seen as overtly pious. Nevertheless, the Russian Orthodox Church credits him as a key figure in its changed fortunes after decades of the Communist-era's official atheism.

"By his strength, he helped the restoration of the proper role of the Russian Orthodox Church in the life of the country and its people," church spokesman Metropolitan Kirill said in a statement.

That "proper role" is quite a loaded statement. The religion watchdog news service Forum18 and the Russian press agency Interfax have markedly different articles on Yeltsin's legacy on religious freedom. Forum18 summarizes the former president's mixed legacy: "While Yeltsin lifted some state controls over churches following the collapse of the Soviet Union, he eventually signed a controversial Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations."

For more on religious freedom in Russia, see our full coverage area.

Posted by Ted Olsen at April 24, 2007 10:09AM | Comments (0)

A Sam Smith sports column in today's Chicago Tribune has sparked a thought that might help Christians slow down big injustices. It seems that a few teams have figured out how to defense mammoth, domineering big menf like Shaq. You do it with quickness--the defender must antipate the big man's move, step immediately in his path, establish his position, fall backwards when contacted by the big man, and so draw a charge. Foul on the big man. Enough fouls, and the big man sits on the bench--at least until the next game.

Christians activists are up against some pretty mammoth, domineering social injustices, and they are constantly getting beaten by them. I'm wondering if quick footedness leading to a charge--which usually requires the defender to flop backwards, feigning inappropriate contact--would constitute a social foul. Enough of those, and maybe the public would ask the social justice to sit on the bench. At least for awhile.

I'll let others speculate how exactly this applies to social injustices. But my intuition tells me there is something for us to learn in this style of basketball defense. It's helped the Chicago Bulls nuetralize Shaq. Not that Shaq is a great social injustice--though a Bulls fan might think so.

Posted by Mark Galli at April 24, 2007 8:39AM | Comments (2)

This is no longer our election blog, but is now a blog for all of CT's editors to discuss ongoing news and issues.

Posted by Ted Olsen at April 23, 2007 2:10PM | Comments (1)