Tired of handing out the unoriginal "fun-size" Snickers bars? Look no further.

Sweets with Soul. Looking for a religious alternative to traditional Halloween candy? Beliefnet's panel of experts spent hours tasting and analyzing several spiritually-minded sweets, so you don't have to.

My favorite is the Noah's Ark Gummi Animals: "Standard gummi fare in a variety of flavors, not too tart, not too sweet. We presume we should eat the animals in pairs."

If this inspires you, I hope you enjoy a religiously sugar-filled day.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at October 31, 2007 8:20AM | Comments (1)

The largest state Baptist convention in the nation elected its first female president yesterday, the Associated Press reports.

Joy Fenner, a former missionary to Japan, narrowly defeated Texas pastor David Lowrie, 900 to840. The Dallas Morning News reports that Fenner's will begin her presidency in a time of trouble for the BGCT, including a budget shortfall, layoffs and a scandal involving church starting funds.

Fenner is not the only "first" for the convention. The AP reports that the convention elected its first Hispanic president in 2004 and its first black president in 2005.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at October 30, 2007 4:59PM | Comments (9)

Last Friday, I joined five other evangelical Protestant leaders for an intense and rewarding half-hour conversation with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Our goal was to assure her of our support as she navigates the treacherous waters of Middle East politics - particularly as she arm-wrestles the various parties toward the summit planned for the beginning of December in Annapolis. The Bush Administration is hoping that foundations can be laid for an enduring, peaceful two-state solution in Israel-Palestine conflict.

The others in our delegation included three megachurch pastors - Bob Roberts of Northwood Church near Dallas, Joel Hunter of Northland Church near Orlando, and John Jenkins of First Baptist Church of Glen Arden near Washington, DC. Also part of the group were foreign policy guru Chris Seiple of the Institute for Global Engagement and Ron Sider of Palmer Theological Seminary.

Secretary Rice is an intelligent, calm, well-spoken person whose social skills are clearly meant for diplomacy. (Click here , here , and here for CT's 2003 cover essay about Condi Rice.) But she also radiates strength - which is what it takes to go head-to-head with the antagonists in a protracted conflict.

Here are a few highlights from our conversation:

? She is a "fundamental defender of Israel's security and its right to defend itself." She will not abandon Israel's security needs.

? She also doesn't believe that you can excuse any terrorist activity by calling people "freedom fighters." There is no such thing. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.

? Although there are absolutist factions on both sides, she believes that the leadership on both sides now understands that the window of opportunity for a peaceful resolution is very limited, and that this will require them to abandon absolutist claims for practical possibilities. This could open up political space in both societies for moderates to function.

? Resolving this conflict is important both regionally and locally. More than just Palestinians and Israelis have a stake in this. Responsible Muslim allies in, for example, Indonesia would discover that a fair and peaceful resolution would reduce the pressures from fundamentalist groups. And in the region itself, the Arab states are quite nervous about the activities of an Iran-backed Hamas that wants to exploit tensions with Israel.

? She sees herself as a facilitator. The US is not imposing a solution on Israelis and Palestinians, but it is helping leaders who want to move their people toward increasing peace and economic stability to reach their goals.

? She is realistic. In the 14 months the Bush Administration has left, there is no way to accomplish everything that needs to be done. But strong foundations can be laid. And this is a moment of opportunity.

The pastors in our group are interested in more than diplomacy. While they prayed for Secretary Rice, that God would strengthen her to accomplish her mission, they also spoke of people-to-people development projects they envisioned to help impoverished Palestinians to a better life. If Palestinian civil society is going to recover from its current chaos, it will require some serious attention to local economies. That's something that individual American Christians can be part of.

On her October 17 visit to Bethlehem, Secretary Rice observed first-hand the devastated economy of that traditionally Christian city. With tourism as the lifeblood of the local economy, occupancy in the main hotel is down to 20%. This fact was repeatedly reported in the press after her visit, and Secretary Rice referred to it again in our conversation. She was obviously glad to hear of the hopes these pastors had for reaching out to fellow Christians in the birthplace of Jesus. Stay tuned for an announcement of specific church-based projects in the near future.

Several years ago, I heard Secretary Rice give her testimony at the National Prayer Breakfast. She talked about the African-American spiritual "Nobody Knows the Trouble I've Seen." There is a paradox in that spiritual. One line talks plaintively of trouble, suffering, and sorrow. The next exclaims, "Glory, Hallelujah!" Secretary Rice, as a Christian believer, sees that the path to "Glory, Hallelujah!" lies through tribulation - but only if one lets go of the pain and the preoccupation with victim status and uses it for the good of others. That kind of faith may fit her well for taking on the monumental challenges of the Middle East.

Posted by David Neff at October 30, 2007 2:56PM | Comments (10)

Like a lot of Christians, I watched the "Gospel of Judas" program on the National Geographic channel in 2006. It was a well-done program. But at the time, the entire endeavor was under a cloud. The manuscript's history has always been a problem. Then, the producers of the program, the codex owners, and several of the program's commentators all seemed to have agendas that conflicted with good scholarship.

Now, come to find out, another scholar has a fresh transliteration of the text that reflects a fundamentally different perspective than the one that NG provided.

You can get up to speed with this piece in the current US News & World report (Yahoo version). Journalist Jay Tolson notes:

Remember all the hoopla about the Gospel of Judas, the long-lost Gnostic text that depicted Judas not as wicked villain but as the Messiah's favorite, who was given the nasty job of betraying him because he understood Jesus's special mission better than anybody else did?

Well, now it turns out that that might not be what the Gospel of Judas was saying at all. If April De Conick, a professor of biblical studies at Rice University, is right, the English translation that was sponsored by the National Geographic was so flawed in crucial places that it reversed what the text was actually saying: that Judas was just as nasty as all the traditional orthodox Christian accounts said he was.

The problem, De Conick says, is that the translation was based on very incomplete reconstructions of the original Coptic text. In the October 15 entry of her Forbidden Gospels Blog, she explains that the mistakes were so bad that she was inspired to write a book, the newly published Thirteenth Apostle, to rectify them:

I haven't see a copy of the book yet. But if De Conick's work holds up under further scrutiny it will weaken further the attempts by lefty scholars to undermine Christian orthodoxy through the elevation of gnostic writings.

Wikipedia will give you a good summary overview of this ongoing controversy.

To me, the other amazing realization is how

Judas has staying power as a pop culture icon.

See this review of the new production, "The Last Days of Judas Iscariot."

The reviewer writes:

The play centers on Judas’ trial in purgatory, and a liberal, young, female lawyer’s attempt to have him cleared of all charges and let in to heaven. Many famous witnesses are called on his behalf and against him including Mother Teresa, Sigmund Freud, and Lucifer himself. What makes these characters so unique is their portrayal. They use clichés skillfully by upholding them and debunking them at the same time. Typical religious figures such as Peter, Matthew, and Judas himself are modernized in a way that makes them accessible without diminishing the root of their characters.

Here's more on the play in the Dallas Morning News.

Why do we find Judas such a fascinating figure?

Posted by Tim Morgan at October 30, 2007 11:17AM | Comments (1)

Renowned Hebrew scholar Robert Alter has just released another translation of a portion of the Old Testament, this time of the Psalms--perhaps the most familiar and beloved book of Scripture among believers and nonbelievers alike. The Book of Psalms (Norton) is a near-600-page tome featuring Alter's translation of all 150 psalms, along with extensive historical and cultural commentary, which comprises nearly half of each page. Psalms is the next installment of Alter's biblical translations, following The Five Books of Moses (2004), Genesis (1997), and The Art of Biblical Narrative (1983), a foundational primer in how to read the Bible for its literary qualities.

Alter states in an interview with online Jewish arts magazine NextBook that his intent in translating has always been to capture and remain faithful to the intent and rhythm of the original Hebrew text. Such literary qualities that he says are often overlooked in some popular English translations are the parallelisms, plays on words, and what he calls the "terrific compactness of the Hebrew expression." Thus, some of the most well-known psalms, like Psalm 23, begin to take a different shape with Alter's translation:

Though I walk in the vale of death's shadow,
I fear no harm, For You are with me.
Your rod and Your staff - it is they that console me.
You set out a table before me in the face of my foes.
You moisten my head with oil, my cup overflows.
Let but goodness and kindness pursue me
all the days of my life.
And I shall dwell in the house of the LORD for many long days.

Alter's translation epitomizes one of many ways to read Scripture. He and culture-makers who consistently give his translations glowing reviews (like the New Yorker's James Wood) understand the biblical text primarily as a piece of literature that features several passages of exquisite poetry and insight into the human condition.

What can confessing Christians, who believe that the Bible is so much more than a piece of great literature, gain from scholars who approach Scripture primarily as a literary text? Do we ignore translations like Alter's as being inconsequential in light of the Bible's transformative power as the very Word of God? Or do we embrace Alter's translations as fine pieces of scholarly rigor and great supplementary books to keep alongside our KJVs? How do we affirm the literary genius of the scriptural text, or should we?

To answer these questions, it may be helpful to consider a unique educational project that launched two years ago to address the overwhelming ignorance of the Bible among today's high school students. The Bible Literacy Project (for which Alter is a board member), offers curriculum to high school teachers to teach the Bible as the most important literary text of the Western world. The curriculum, titled The Bible and Its Influence, has been praised for its scholarship among secular and religious news sources alike.

Writing as a confessing Christian, it's worthy of celebration to hear that people who may never have opened a Bible otherwise are digging deep into the historical and cultural roots of this powerful text. Whenever the Bible is studied, even if it is being studied primarily as a piece of literature, who knows how the Lord might use those instances to illuminate the text far beyond a great book, but indeed, his very Word with its power to shine Light into our darkness? And who is to say that Alter's translations might not be used by the Lord in the same way--especially for New Yorker editors who may never otherwise touch a Bible with a 10-foot pole?

Yet the church has the opportunity to pick up where Alter's translations fall short and teach Scripture primarily as the Word of Life, and only secondarily as a remarkable piece of literature. We shouldn't be afraid to recognize the stunning beauty of passages like Psalm 103, Isaiah 43, or the entire book of Ecclesiastes (one of my favorites), knowing that this beauty is a mere vehicle for the power of a "two-edged sword ... able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Heb. 4:12).

Posted by Katelyn Beaty at October 30, 2007 8:39AM | Comments (4)

Joseph R. Crapa, the Executive Director of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, died Thursday after a battle with cancer.

"Joe Crapa was a vigilant and earnest defender of human rights who cared passionately about those who were victims of the abuse of power of governments," Michael Cromartie, current chairman of the USCIRF told CT. "He was a leader of a bipartisan commission who was always civil and fair and concerned about justice for the victims of totalitarian regimes, whether those regimes were religious or political."

In the USCIRF's press release, Cromartie notes Crapa's "sharp political instincts but a soft personal touch."

Richard Land, who serves on the commission as vice chair, is also quoted in the press release. "

"It was an honor to serve on the Search Committee that recommended Joe Crapa to be the Executive Director of the Commission," he said. "As a Republican appointee, I was most happy to enthusiastically endorse and commend this faithful Democrat who loved America and loved the freedom for which it stands. He was a tireless proponent of religious freedom around the world and was instrumental in making the Commission an extremely effective voice for religious freedom. It was an honor and a privilege to have known him and served with him. All of us who knew him will miss him."

Crapa's funeral is today at 1 p.m. at St. Peter's Church in Washington, D.C.

Posted by Ted Olsen at October 29, 2007 9:10AM | Comments (1)

Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback church in Orange County, California, released this letter by email to church members in the past 12 hours:

Dear Saddleback Church Family,

Our campus has been spared, but with 3 of the 18 California fires in the Saddleback Valley (Santiago, Modjeska, and Trabuco Canyons), so many of our members have been forced to evacuate their homes. So far, over 28,000 acres have burned here in our Saddleback Valley area.

Our hearts grieve for all who have lost their homes this week in the 18 fires of Southern California. News agencies report that almost 800,000 people have had to evacuate from their homes, and over 1 billion in damage has occurred so far. Monday night, we prayed together for these people as our 40 Days of Purpose Hosts met for training.

Of course your church has been at the center of relief efforts once again. This is the eighth national or international disaster that Saddleback has mobilized for, so our disaster teams are quite organized and effective as first responders.

HERE'S A QUICK UPDATE:

Our 120 acre campus has served as a Fire Evacuation Center, caring for and feeding people who had to evacuate their homes. We've also been taking care of a lot of pets and horses!

We've also been a staging area and Relief/Refreshment Center for the fire fighters. Today we fed over 425 fire fighters on our church campus. These fire fighters are from all over California.

Our ministry teams have been placing evacuated families into homes of members.

We've sent out trained volunteer chaplains to many other evacuation sites besides Saddleback care, counsel, and pray.

Today Saturday, many of our relief teams will head to the hardest hit areas of San Diego, as well as serving here in our local communities. Also members divided up in small groups to do clean up work in the Saddleback Valley. Each small group was given 4 houses to work with.

Saddleback is serving as a clearinghouse for relief donations for victims. Many individuals, organizations, and congregations from other states have called and wired funds to Saddleback that we're distributing to those who've lost everything. For information on giving go to www.saddleback.com

AN OBSERVATION

As the fires have raged this week, I've once again seen the undeniable importance and benefit of being a part of a small group. While people without a church home or a small group were sent to evacuation centers across Southern California (like our campus), I kept hearing story after story of Saddleback small groups opening their homes to fellow group members who had to evacuate. I also witnessed small groups actually fighting fires together when a group member's homes was threatened by fire!

THAT, my friends, is what small groups are all about! Your group carries you through a crisis! Right now I feel sorry for those who've never connected with a group. It's never too late to join one.

Also, I am so proud of how our 3,500 small groups immediately moved into action in this crisis. Jesus said, "Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples." John 13:35 (NLT)

(For those of you who asked: Yes, Kay (my wife) and Saddleback staff minister Elizabeth Styffe were captured briefly on video by a local TV news crew. Members of our small group were assisting in saving the Styffe home from the fire in their back yard. You may have also seen many of our college ministry ("CRAVE") students working alongside firefighters on the fire lines.

THREE THINGS YOU CAN YOU DO

1. Continue to pray for all the firefighters. MANY are Saddleback members.

2. This weekend, invite your friends and neighbors. I'm speaking on "HOW CAN I LOOK UP WHEN I'M BURNED OUT?" KEN BLANCHARD, the bestselling management author of all time, will share his personal testimony and response after his house burned down this week in Rancho Bernardo.

3. The following weekend, Nov. 3-4, invite everyone to join us as we publicly honor all the Fire Fighters at our six services Please pass on this word.

Remember, God's purpose for your life is greater than any problem you'll face.

"These trials are only to test your faith, to show that it is strong and pure. It is being tested as fire tests and purifies gold - and your faith is far more precious to God than mere gold. So if your faith remains strong after being tried by fiery trials, it will bring you much praise and glory and honor on the day when Jesus Christ is revealed to the whole world." 1 Peter 1:7 (NLT)

See you this weekend during 40 Days of Purpose.

Pastor Rick

Posted by Tim Morgan at October 28, 2007 12:49PM | Comments (16)

Ken Blanchard (One Minute Manger) and Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren appeared on Larry King Live last night to talk about the Southern California fires. Blanchard will be speaking at Saddleback tonight.

Here's what Blanchard had to say:

I was in Florida when it happened. And on Monday morning, 4:30 time-out here, my son Scott who owns a house a third of a mile down from me said, "Dad, we just had to evacuate the house, and I'm down on the side of the road and flames are coming from my house and I think yours is gone, too."

And so, it was a double hit potential, Larry, and it was really interesting. My thoughts really went more to my son and his loss because he had just built this house and redone it with a new blended family, and they were just had so much love and hope in that home.

And so, you know, as a follower of Jesus, I just, you know, tried to quiet myself because I knew that He wanted me to have peace and joy and righteousness. And the way I felt I could do that was to, you know, focus my energy on my son Scott. And when I talked to my wife Margie (ph), she said her real pain was for Scott, too, and so we just prayed that maybe his house would be saved. But there was three eye witnesses, Larry, including a policeman that said his house was gone. And on Tuesday, he calls me and he says, "Dad, you won't believe it. I'm standing in our house. It's standing, he said, but yours is gone."

And I just cried with joy because that's what I hoped, you know, because I wanted it for him. And so, it was tough, you know, to lose our house, but it would have been so much from our standpoint tougher on him. ...

We get such great compassion in this country when there's a crisis. But we don't seem to get it in good times.

You know, good times, all the political people are fighting with each other. And tough times, everybody pulls together and are servant leaders. How can we keep that going? You know because I'm trying to lead like Jesus' ministry to say we ought to be serving each other all the time.

I am so proud of this country in crisis, but I really want and hope and pray that when times are good, we can have compassion and love and serve each other.

There's more in the transcript.

Posted by Ted Olsen at October 27, 2007 6:22PM | Comments (3)

With the "What about Huckabee?" cries growing louder, the National Association of Evangelicals' poll reveals that many Christian leaders do see him as the best match for their values.

When making a specific choice Huckabee was clearly the leader with Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson tying for a distant second place. Hillary Clinton was named, but only by those who don't want her to be a candidate.

Brownback resigned from the race October 19.

The Associated Press points out that Huckabee may be less conspicuous because, "His lack of money means Huckabee can field only eight paid staffers in Iowa, about half the size of Romney's campaign, and cannot air TV ads as Romney has done for months."

Some who took the NAE poll are worried that supporting a candidate who starts from behind is a losing bet.

There is no groundswell support for any Republican or Democratic candidate," says National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) President Leith Anderson. "Huckabee is a clear first choice, but there is concern that he is too far behind in the polls to catch up. If he does well in the Iowa caucuses or early primaries, then Evangelicals may suddenly rally to his support.

Can someone who was not the initial frontrunner really take the primaries? If you're looking at Republican candidates, it's not likely, according to a Pew Research Center poll. But the Atlantic Monthly points out that 2008 may be different: "Front-loaded primaries, early fund-raising events, and multiple potential front-runners make this season's guessing game harder - and possibly more pointless - than ever."

Posted by Susan Wunderink at October 26, 2007 3:17PM | Comments (8)

A press release from Strang Communications:

New Man, SpiritLed Woman Shift Emphasis to Internet to Respond to Changing Market

Lake Mary, FL--New Man magazine, started during the excitement of the early Promise Keepers movement, is shifting from print to the Internet after 13 years.

At the same time, the publisher--Strang Communications--is also shifting SpiritLed Woman to an Internet version.

Subscriptions to both magazines will be fulfilled by either Charisma or Ministry Today, which will add articles of interest to both men and women each issue for the new readers, also giving advertisers the editorial environment they want in print. The added circulation will boost Charisma's paid circulation.

But most of the emphasis will shift to the Web for both magazines. In addition to carrying a variety of feature articles, which were the focal point of both print magazines, the online versions of each - found at newmanmag.com and spiritledwoman.com - will also include teaching from a biblical perspective, news, blog posts, podcasts, daily devotionals, and video clips of interviews with influential Christian men and women.

"The market has changed, so we're changing," said Stephen Strang, publisher and founder of New Man, and co-owner of Strang Communications with his wife, Joy, who founded SpiritLed Woman 10 years ago.

"We've tried to be flexible in responding to opportunities and changes in the market. That's how we've built our company over the years," he said. "But the men's movement isn't what it used to be, and the Internet was hardly around when we started New Man. Now it's the wave of the future."

In 1994, Strang Communications agreed with Promise Keepers to have New Man be the organization's "official magazine" for a three-year period. From the time of the agreement to the publishing of the first issue was only 105 days.

Strang remembers the circulation growing to 400,000 at one point, with eight issues a year. New Man had cut back to six issues a year and printed 100,000 copies, with about 80,000 paid circulation.

SpiritLed Woman grew out of large Charisma Women's Conferences that were held for 10 consecutive years and reached an attendance of about 9,000. Strang said the Lord directed the company to end the women's conferences in 2004.

"We think these are important brands and important audiences we intend to serve," Strang said.

"We just will serve them differently. Plus, we can now focus our company's resources more on the Internet," he said, adding there are major Internet opportunities for the company that will be announced shortly. ...

The November/December 2007 issue of New Man will be the final issue in print. The December/January 2008 issue of SpiritLed Woman will be the final one in print. Advertisers in these publications were notified of the shift in emphasis on Oct. 19.

Posted by Ted Olsen at October 26, 2007 1:42PM | Comments (3)

Finally, after four days of spreading wildfires, the situation in Southern California is improving. The Santa Ana winds that made the fires especially volatile have subsided, and firefighters are regaining control of the blazes. Taking stock of the damage this morning, the Los Angeles Times reports that 1,609 homes have been destroyed and 695 square miles scorched. The destruction is expected to cost insurance companies around $1 billion - a pittance compared to the staggering $41.1 billion insurers paid out for Katrina, but still a significant natural disaster.

Or was it a natural disaster? Authorities suspect that at least two of the dozen or so large fires in Southern California were caused by arsonists. One suspect has been arrested on suspicion of arson; another was killed during a police chase.

Whatever the cause of the fires, one little-reported aspect of the story has been the response of churches and Christian organizations. Congregations throughout the area are assisting in relief work of one kind or another. World Vision, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Society, and Samaritan's Purse have all contributed as well, with Samaritan's Purse sending five disaster-response trucks to Southern California. It's impossible to know the full extent of Christians' efforts - from churches that have housed evacuees to the person-to-person encouragement and assistance that pastors and church members have given to friends and neighbors - but hopefully more of this story will come out in the days ahead.

In the meantime, let's continue to pray. As a World Vision press release yesterday pointed out, low-income families in the area, especially those without adequate insurance on their homes or apartments, will be particularly devastated by fire damage.

Update: The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has also been part of the aid effort in California. Their Rapid Response Team (formed in response to September 11) was deployed for the 18th time to "provide spiritual and emotional assistance," according to a press release.

The BGEA website has more about what their chaplains are encountering in the region.

Posted by Madison Trammel at October 25, 2007 11:24AM | Comments (2)

Reinhold Niebuhr may not be Bono, but he might come close. Ever since President Bush declared a war on terror in 2001, intellectuals and religious leaders have invoked Niebuhr's politics, Atlantic Monthly reporter Justine Isola writes in her piece "Everybody Loves Reinhold."

"[B]y now a well-turned Niebuhr reference is the speechwriter's equivalent of a photo op with Bono," she quotes Paul Elie.
Niebuhr thus came to be associated in many people's minds as much with the politics of power as with the tenets of Christianity, Isola writes.

But those who invoke Niebuhr tend to ignore his religion and focus on his political concerns, Isola writes after interviewing Paul Elie, author of November Atlantic piece "A Man for All Reasons."

Niebuhr's conclusions, Elie reminds us, were thoroughly informed by what Elie calls a ?biblical perspective' - a long sense of human history as reflected in the stories and lessons of the Bible - and by his view of human nature as ?rooted in human sinfulness.'

For Elie, the brushing aside of Niebuhr's Christian dimensions is symptomatic of a greater problem: our intellectual and political leaders have largely lost touch with the biblical perspective that once guided our country's founders and continues to profoundly influence the lives of most people living in the world today. In an age in which intellectual discourse in this country is increasingly secularized, and religion tends to inform our national politics in only a superficial way, Niebuhr stands out as a man whose Christian beliefs provided a deep well of insight.

Isola asks Elie: What, in your view, are the implications of having politicians in power who lack a biblical perspective?

As Niebuhr characterized it, the biblical tradition brought to America a sense of a long history which our relatively young country lacked, Elie answers.

If you take that biblical sense of history away on both sides, you're left with a fairly ahistorical secular liberalism and a fairly ahistorical religious conservatism, and that's a recipe for shallowness in our political life.

The Atlantic Monthly's piece is a compelling read. Also, consider dipping into New York Times' archives for its 2005 piece "Forgetting Reinhold Niebuhr":

"In the midst of this religious commotion, the name of the most influential American theologian of the 20th century rarely appears - Reinhold Niebuhr."

Perhaps we should examine Niebuhr's theology more closely if it truly has this impact.

Related Elsewhere:

What's Law Got to Do with It? | Recovering a lost heritage.

The Prophet and the Evangelist | The public "conversation" of Reinhold Niebuhr and Billy Graham.

Obama's faith, his pastor, and his foreign policy | The NYT explores the Senator's faith and his pastor, while David Brooks deciphers how it might affect his foreign policy.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at October 24, 2007 3:26PM | Comments (2)

According to a new poll conducted by the Barna Group, a substantial majority of Americans believes in the literal truth of six key Bible stories. For those of us worried about how to communicate biblical truth in our increasingly postmodern and pluralistic culture, the findings indicate that many folks continue to accept the Word of God at face value.

Here are the overall results among adults to the question of whether they thought a specific story in the Bible was "literally true, meaning it happened exactly as described in the Bible":

Christ's crucifixion, burial, and resurrection (75%);

Daniel in the Lion's Den (65%);

Moses parting the Red Sea (64%);

David and Goliath (63%);

Peter walking on water (60%);

God creating the universe in six days (60%).

When you break down the numbers, it gets even more interesting. Several factors are correlated with less belief in a literal resurrection: high education, mainline vs. non-mainline Protestantism, Catholicism vs. Protestantism, and white vs. black. So, statistically speaking, a highly educated white Catholic or mainline professor from the Northeast would likely be more skeptical than a blue-collar African-American Protestant from the Midwest or South.

Further, the more skeptical you are about the Bible, the more likely it is that you are a political liberal. On the flip side, the more you take these narratives literally, the more likely you are to be a conservative:

There were very consistent patterns related to people's political inclinations. Of the six stories examined, just one story (the resurrection of Christ) was considered to be literally true by at least half of all liberals. In contrast, among conservatives, only one of those stories was taken literally by less than 80% (the 76% who embraced the six day creation as absolute truth.) Similarly, the data showed that Republicans were more likely than either Democrats or Independents to accept each of the stories as literally accurate. For all six narratives, Independents were the voting group least likely to hold a literal interpretation, an average of twenty percentage points lower than the norm among Republicans.

This hints, to me at least, that the national Democrats, despite their recent rediscovery of people of faith, have an uphill climb ahead in winning their trust - and their votes. Certainly they have done so with African Americans. It remains to be seen if they will be able to get the much larger numbers of white Protestants to also believe in them.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at October 24, 2007 9:40AM | Comments (7)

GodTube, which inspires headlines like "The Big Guy Goes Online," launched in August and promptly became the fastest-growing web property in America. Yesterday, GodTube announced the "Video Police" and the "GodCaster", components of its new social network.

The Los Angeles Times reports that

GodTube's claim that it has become the most trafficked Christian website on the Internet is trumped only by a second boast: that by the sheer volume of video watched by its users -- 1.5 million hours last month -- it is now the world's largest broadcaster of Christian video.

Note: In case anyone is under the impression that "Christian video" is all about God, there is at least one tic-inducing video of a singing squirrel. All the videos are screened for family-friendliness before they are allowed to go live on the site. Which leads me to wonder whether someone cute reading Genesis 38, for example, would make the cut.

The singing squirrel-watching demographic and the child-reciting-Bible-verses-adoring demographic, as well as other GodTube users, are customers for a lucrative business, reports the LA Times.

Despite its partnerships with nonprofit religious organizations, GodTube is not a church. It is a media company with a thoroughly planned business model. That model includes selling both religious and secular advertising, charging subscription fees to ministries that want to broadcast more frequently and selling anonymous demographic data "off the back end" -- allowing marketers and media producers a clearer picture of who's watching their programming.

What, besides the fact that GodTube is new, could explain its fast growth? In their press release published online by the Wall Street Journal, CEO Chris Wyatt says

GodTube.com's success is proof positive that Jesus 2.0 is the wave of the future. Our entire culture is becoming internet focused. Today, people use the internet to search for practically everything they need in life -- Why not their faith?

Past statements from GodTube imply that their site could partly solve the problem of declining church attendance. The LA Times, responding to that idea, asked communications professor Heidi Campbell, "What can you get on your laptop that you can't get from the pew? The answer, according to Campbell, is more sustained and satisfying personal interaction." Which seems oddly backwards.

However, with the GodCaster's technology that enables seemingly face-on-screen to face-on-screen interaction, she may be right. Vnunet.com reports that "In its initial beta launch, the GodCaster will be available to churches and ministries around the world to stream their service online, hold a virtual Bible study, or even start an online congregation."

Posted by Susan Wunderink at October 23, 2007 1:08PM | Comments (1)

James Watson, with Francis Crick back in 1962 one of the co-discoverers of the DNA double -helix, is in rhetorical hell for saying in an October 14 interview that he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours, whereas all the testing says not really."

Watson also said he sees no reason to believe different races in different parts of the world should have evolved identically, and that while we may hope all groups are equal, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."

Now faced with the cancellation of his British book tour (Watson has written a new book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science) and an international outcry, a "mortified" Watson, 79, is now busily apologizing "unreservedly."

"I cannot understand how I could have said what I am quoted as having said," Watson said during an appearance at the Royal Society in London. "I can certainly understand why people, reading those words, have reacted in the ways that they have."

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief."

Interesting. This is the same un-boring Watson who in the past has been the author of any number of provocative comments that seek to reduce human life down to the size of the double-helix. Watson has said, "You know, the only people who say that stupid people don't exist are people who are not stupid. We know that if we go to homeless people there is an underclass with a very strong mental disease component. Those people can't pull themselves together, the brain just won't allow it. So it is not that they are weak in character, they are seriously unequal."

Watson is a persistent advocate of eugenics--improving human capacity through genetics. As practiced under people such as Margaret Sanger and Adolf Hitler, eugenics also became a convenient excuse to eliminate "undesirables." Watson thinks we can do eugenics right this time, though.

Should Hitler harm us for the next 200 years by saying that we cannot do genetics? People say to me that 'you are acting like Hitler'. People have accused me of being a Nazi just because I won't accept raw evolution, because I wanted to filter it a little and try to improve the quality of human life," he says. "We can say that we want to improve human beings genetically but we don't want to do it by the ways that were attempted in the past."

As William Dembski slyly comments, "Anybody willing to offer predictions about when Darwinists will be getting back big time into the eugenics business?"

For Watson now to wonder how he could have said such things seems disingenuous. The comments track very well with his reductionistic, materialistic scientism. Yes, it's good that he has apologized. But it seems odd that a man of such great learning and accomplishment would be so scientifically naive. Almost any debate in science has a nature vs. nurture component, and for Watson to boil everything down to DNA seems myopic at best. If differering "races" have different IQ or test scores, could some of that difference be explained by life experiences, nutrition, and educational opportunities? Why so quickly resort solely to biological explanations?

Certainly Watson's bias is for materialistic answers to life's questions. As he said once,

"The book of the DNA sequence would in time be regarded as more relevant to human life than the Bible.

"It tells us who we are," he says, adding without a hint of irony: "I've never read the Bible, so I'm not sure I've missed much."

One hopes that in the coming days Dr. Watson will figure out what he has been missing.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at October 22, 2007 11:53AM | Comments (11)

From David Instone-Brewer:

While I am pleased that my article has provoked so much debate (for and against), it is unfortunate that much of this has centered on a particularly weak portion where, admittedly, it is possible to misunderstand my main message - that biblically, divorce is only allowed for serious and specific grounds. Unfortunately, some people have misunderstood the mention of emotional and physical neglect, believing that this refers to any minor infraction, which is utterly opposite to the conclusions I intended to convey.

John Piper (who is familiar with my work though he disagrees with the conclusions) has helpfully pointed out that this is a misunderstanding of my article, so I have written a blog thanking him for his input, as well as interacting with his interpretation. It is posted on my blog and after the jump.

* * *
John Piper has written a gracious and well-argued response to my article in Christianity Today. He criticizes my conclusions and outlines his own, non-traditional, interpretation of the texts, which I will respond to below. He also says that the article has been misunderstood by many readers, pointing out that it is easy to jump to the wrong conclusions if you read the article, without having read my books (which he knows well).

Many readers have misunderstood the article to say that divorce is allowed for any breaking of marriage vows by emotional or physical neglect. But what my research demonstrates is that both Jesus and Paul criticized no-fault divorce and taught that we should forgive the faults of our marriage partners. Jesus did, however, allow divorce if the marriage vows were broken with ‘hardness of heart’ – an Old Testament word meaning continuing, or stubborn, unrepentance. This means, in effect, that divorce is allowed for adultery, abandonment or abuse. I am glad to have the opportunity to put this important distinction across.

John Piper’s own interpretation of the divorce passages is based on the view that porneia (Greek for ‘sexual indecency’) had a different meaning in first century Judaism, when it referred mainly to ‘fornication’ (i.e. sexual sin before marriage). This well-established theory was popularized a few decades ago by the Catholic scholar Murphy O’Connor, who found supporting evidence in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This interpretation is important for Catholic scholars because it means that Jesus did not allow any divorce after marriage has occurred – the same teaching that Piper supports.

This evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls was based on only one passage, a particularly difficult one, in the Damascus Document, which relies on the translation of the word zenut (the Hebrew equivalent of porneia) as "sex before marriage". Since O’Connor put forward this theory, however, other scrolls have been studied (especially the Temple Scroll) and most scholars have concluded that the early interpretations of this passage were mistaken, and that it was actually forbidding polygamy.

This does not mean that John Piper’s non-traditional interpretation of porneia is wrong (it is still a possible interpretation that is waiting for more evidence), but it does mean that we do not now have much evidence that it can be translated this way. In fact, most scholars agree that porneia is a general term for sexual sin, as seen in the New Testament itself. It is used for visiting a prostitute (1 Cor.6.13-15, 18), incest (1 Cor.5.1), general sexual sin by a married person (1 Cor.7.2), use of cultic prostitutes (Rev.2.20-21) and the sin of the ‘whore of Babylon’ (Rev.17.2, 4; 18.3; 19.2) - though the most common meaning is ‘sexual sin in general’ (e.g. Acts 15.20; Eph.5.3; Col.3.5).

It is a pity that I wasn’t clearer when I summarized my book in the CT article, but that is the danger of trying to say a great deal in few words. I’d like to thank John Piper for helping to set aside some of the misconceptions which resulted.

(Discuss below or on Instone-Brewer's blog. See also our earlier blog post on criticisms of the Instone-Brewer article.)

Posted by Ted Olsen at October 22, 2007 11:21AM | Comments (85)

A new study by The Barna Group shows that Americans "remain confident that some of the most amazing stories in the Bible can be taken at face value."

The nationwide survey asked adults their take on six well-known Bible stories (Creation, parting of the Red Sea, David killing Goliath, Daniel in the lion's den, Peter walking on water, the Resurrection of Jesus) whether the story was "literally true, meaning it happened exactly as described in the Bible" or whether they thought the story was "meant to illustrate a principle but is not to be taken literally."

The results are broken down by faith tradition, geography, race, and education. To take one overall finding, though: "The story of Jesus Christ rising from the dead, after being crucified and buried" was the story most widely embraced. Three out of four adults (75 percent) said they interpreted that narrative literally.

Yet polls and anecdotal evidence suggest that 75 percent of Americans are not living dedicated lives to the resurrected Jesus!

This should give us apologetic pause. A great deal of evangelical apologetics is about proving the historicity of the resurrection (or creation--intelligent design or 7-day--but nearly two-thirds of Americans already believe in a literal 7-day creation). The figures suggest that this is NOT the battle ground for most Americans. It is the relevance or meaning of the resurrection that seems to elude Americans. It is not a stretch for most people to believe that a God who created the universe could raise Jesus from the dead, among other miracles--Duh. What is a stretch is understanding what difference it makes.

Perhaps it's time for a new chapter in evangelical apologetics. Not "The Resurrection--Did it Happen?" but "The Resurrection--So What?"

Posted by Mark Galli at October 22, 2007 9:56AM | Comments (6)

Last week I got back from two weeks in China. CT will be running a cover story on the church in China as we get closer to the Olympics. But first I’d like to tell you about Bing Chiu. Bing is the owner of two restaurants, one in Beijing’s Central Business District and another near a university outside Beijing. These restaurants are occupying a new public "space" available for Christians to live, work, and minister.

Bing, like many younger Chinese, became a Christian when he was studying overseas. In fact, it was in Halifax Nova Scotia, while he was an undergrad that Bing became a Christian. Since then, he has lived all over China and worked mostly in advertising.

But Bing wanted to do something different. He wanted to create a restaurant that combined both Eastern and Western food and featured his favorite desserts from Hong Kong. And let me say, he’s done a fantastic job. The meals at his Upper Room restaurant are fabulous. If you’re in Beijing for the Olympics next summer, definitely visit the Upper Room.

The restaurant is just one of many ways that Christians are making their voices heard in China. Bing uses his restaurants as friendly ways to introduce people to Christianity. Mostly, Bing serves meals. But he also sends out weekly inspirational e-mails inviting people to a music party held at the Upper Room where people sing and listen to music, some of it Christian. Bing’s letters go to more than 3,000 people, many of them non-Christians. For Bing, his letters and the weekly music party are opportunities to introduce people to Christians, Christianity, and Christian music in an inviting atmosphere. These aren't gospel preaching events.

But they are effective. He says university students, especially, are interested in hearing about Christianity and Jesus. Several students a week become Christians, he says, through the outreach at one of his restaurants.

While the Upper Room isn’t located on a major road, in fact it could be difficult to find, it is just one public place for Christians to be open and free about their faith. It’s not a church, but Bing says, it’s a place that can facilitate discussions about God and Jesus.

Christians throughout China are more freely operating in public. While there are still restrictions, I saw and talked to Christians running teen centers, doing marriage retreats and community development, operating orphanages, or even renting worship space for their unregistered churches. There’s no guarantee that this freedom will continue, so the church in China needs prayer. But as I heard over and over again, so far there’s no problem.

Posted by Rob Moll at October 19, 2007 9:32AM | Comments (3)

Christianity Today has repeatedly discussed the problems generated by no-fault divorce in the United States and the problem of the church's therapeutic accommodation to it. Readers should see for example, "The Christian Divorce Culture," an editorial from the year 2000. We received a lot of negative mail from readers who felt we were insufficiently sensitive to the feelings of divorced Christians. Our concerns were also expressed in the 2006 interview with Elizabeth Marquardt, which examines the painful impact of divorce on children.

So we were surprised at the way a number of people interpreted David Instone-Brewer's recent CT cover story, "What God Has Joined." Despite what some readers thought, Instone-Brewer's article did not contradict CT's consistent message, nor did it give people carte blanche on divorce (though we admit, we could have made that point more strongly).

Instead, Instone-Brewer's article was designed to help us understand Jesus' own words in his own religious and cultural context. Jesus' words on divorce have admittedly been problematic, and scholars have wrestled for centuries trying to understand their precise meaning. Multiple New Testament scholars that we respect have said they think Instone-Brewer's book has the analysis right. (For CT, Instone-Brewer just sketched out the general shape of his analysis, and we pointed readers to his IVP book for the details.)

Instone-Brewer's argument does not give us an infinitely elastic set of reasons for divorce, but it does recognize that marriage is constituted by more than sex, so that marriage can be irreparably harmed by something other than adultery. If, for example, a husband consistently fails to provide material support to his wife, then surely the marriage is as broken as if the husband has committed adultery.

* * *

I suspect that most of my divorced friends are not divorced because a spouse failed to provide the biblical basics of marriage that Instone-Brewer identified. They divorced because they had trouble getting along or they had "fallen out of love" or they had "outgrown the relationship." None of those divorces are justified by Instone-Brewer's understanding of the text. Curiously, one blogger claimed that Instone-Brewer had said that if we are insufficiently "honored" by our spouses, we can legitimately divorce. I don't think so. As I carefully re-read Instone-Brewer's article, he said that our formal vows of "love, honor, and keep" reflect the Mosaic requirements of "food, clothing, and marital rights." (Instone-Brewer used the euphemistic "love" where most English translations of Exodus 21:10 use "marital rights" or "conjugal rights.") That is not creating an elastic "dishonoring" grounds for divorce, but it is defining "honor" in terms of its biblical roots. (Think of the old Prayer Book wedding service: "With my body I thee worship.")

But then I do know a few people who have been divorced following physical abuse or failure to provide. Those divorces, after one partner persisted in abuse or neglect after repeated attempts to restore the marriage, are indeed covered by Instone-Brewer. People who say they have been hurt by such a divorce should probably not blame the divorce, but the party who failed to live up to his promises.

* * *

Some have also complained that Instone-Brewer's reasoning involves using extra-biblical material to silence the plain meaning of Scripture. Extra-biblical material must be handled carefully, and yet it is something that pastors and Bible scholars do every day. In my own generation, we used Moulton and Milligan's The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament to get a sense for how the words the New Testament writers used would have been understood by their contemporaries. Without comparing the biblical books with similar extra-biblical material, we just cannot know what words or phrases would mean to their original readers.

Similarly, my generation of seminary students was urged to use Strack and Billerbeck's Commentary on the New Testament from Talmud and Midrash to tune in to the way in which rabbinic writers discussed issues similar to those tackled by Jesus and Paul. Indeed, without following the particular forms of those rabbinic arguments, we cannot appreciate the shape of Jesus' and Paul's arguments.

Scholarly investigation of the relationship between rabbinical discussion and the way the New Testament writers dealt with issue has moved way beyond Strack and Billerbeck. And David Instone-Brewer is one of those who has advanced it.

Curiously, the 16th-century Reformers were much closer to Instone-Brewer's conclusions than to many of our more conservative contemporary expositors. They didn't have Instone-Brewer's knowledge of rabbinic writing, but like him they came out with more grounds for divorce than many of our churches do. Zwingli and Bucer had the longest lists of grounds for divorce, but even they had clear reasons that could not be stretched to cover just any situation. Many of them were dealing with divorce in a social framework that was no longer dominated by the Roman church. At Trent, Rome stuck by its narrow allowances for divorce and condemned these "liberal" Protestants. If Instone-Brewer is in line with these Reformers, his conclusions are hardly radical.

I am sorry that this particular cover story in CT struck many readers the way it did. We are seriously concerned about the effects of no-fault divorce in our society and the devastating impact it has on the economic and emotional lives of children. We urge churches not to succumb to the therapeutic society's tendency to indulge divorce. Instead, the church must reconnect with a strong marital ideal taught by the Bible and the church. We can teach that ideal to our young people. But we need not punish those whose spouses persistently fail to live up to their vows.

Posted by David Neff at October 18, 2007 4:48PM | Comments (71)

Oral Roberts University president Richard Roberts will take a leave of absence after being accused of mishandling school funds and becoming illegally involved in a political campaign, the Associated Press reports.

The ORU Board of Regents announced today that it has accepted his leave of absence, and board executive Billy Joe Daughterty, senior pastor of Victory Christian Center in Tulsa, will become acting president.

"The ORU Board of Regents regrets that the university family has had to endure this situation during recent weeks," George Pearsons, chairman of the board said in a statement. "The board is fully committed to supporting the efforts of the independent outside professional firms that will review the allegations and the practices in place at the University and report back to the Board."

Three former ORU professors filed a lawsuit on Oct. 2 that says that they were wrongfully dismissed and alleges the spending using school funds, including home remodels and a trip to the Bahamas. It also accuses Roberts of enlisting students in a local political campaign, which would violate the university's nonprofit status.

An amended complaint included details of an internal ministry report that says Richard Robert's wife Lindsay Roberts' contacted underage males. The AP reports that the documents says Lindsay Roberts spent the night in the university guest house with an underage male on nine separate occasions, among other allegations.

"The last three weeks have taken a serious toll on me and my family," Richard Roberts said in a statement Wednesday. "The untrue allegations have struck a terrible blow in my heart. The untrue allegations of sexual misconduct by my wife have hurt the most."

Oral Roberts is a 5,300-student charismatic university and a member of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at October 18, 2007 8:31AM | Comments (0)

Apologetics.Com
Features a variety of solid apologetic resources, including several related to the Gospels. Check the "Articles" link.

Apologetics Index
Indexes a vast number of apologetics websites of varying worth. Using the index on the homepage, one can look for specific articles. See "Jesus," for example.

Bible.Org
One of the top Bible websites. The bibliology section (under "Theology: Articles and Studies") has ample resources for Bible study, including some fine pieces on canon and textual criticism.

The Moorings
An apologetics site run by Ed Rickard. While not flinching from taking controversial doctrinal positions, this free site offers well-researched sections devoted to the reliability of the Gospels.

N. T. Wright
This unofficial site contains much more than apologetics, though several articles are relevant, such as "Five Gospels But No Gospel: Jesus and the Seminar" and "Jesus' Resurrection and Christian Origins."

Ben Witherington
Includes writings on many topics by a top New Testament scholar. Often rebuts current attacks on Jesus and the Gospels (for example, an excellent series on the supposed tomb of Jesus). Lacks an index, so use the "Search Blog" function at the top.

Probe Ministries
Filled with apologetics resources. Check the "Reasons to Believe" section for well-researched articles on the Gospels, or use the search function with "Gospels."

Lee Strobel
Features apologetic video clips. "Investigating Jesus" section includes helpful materials on the Gospels.

(This originally appeared on p.109 of the October 2007 issue of Christianity Today)

Posted by Susan Wunderink at October 17, 2007 8:00AM | Comments (1)

Many news outlets, including CT, have covered the Department of Homeland Security's refusal to grant refugee status to anyone who gave "material support" to terrorists under the 2001 USA Patriot Act.

The law was riddled with problems: many who are seeking refugee status are doing so because they were forced to give ransoms and temporary housing at gunpoint.

And then there's the problem of governments that operate much like terrorist groups, including Myanmar's military junta. Chin Duh Kam, a Burmese pastor in America, told me about government officials forcing Christians in Chin State to make ropes and transport military equipment. The New York Times referred to another UN report that

3,000 villages of the Karen and nearby tribes have been destroyed, and more than 500,000 people have been driven from their homes. Government troops are accused of systematically raping girls and forcing children to join their ranks.

So the law's broad ban on everyone giving "material support" unfortunately includes those who are victims of terrorists.

But there is good news for some refugees: Homeland Security has begun to issue waivers for those who were clearly forced to give material support to terrorists, said Jenny Hwang of World Relief.

The Associated Press reports that the U. S. State Department also "waived provisions of the Patriot Act that barred 9,300 ethnic Karen from entering the U.S. because of their association with Myanmar rebels." These Burmese refugees fled their homeland long ago; they are not among those who participated in the August to September protests.

The AP story says the exponential growth in refugee immigration to U. S. cities such as Utica, St. Paul, and Minneapolis is overwhelming aid groups:

Resettlement agency Exodus Refugee has doubled its Indianapolis staff to eight people over the past 11 months but still can't keep up, job specialist Zach Tennant said recently while handing out envelopes with $25 spending money to each adult refugee arriving at Indianapolis International Airport.

In Utica, the Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees has received 300 people over the past 11 weeks, including 109 one week, before the end of the federal fiscal year brought a respite. Director Peter Vogelaar said the biggest challenge is finding them safe, clean homes and jobs. He's finding work for 30 to 40 refugees per month.

"Refugees are survivors and they are incredibly resilient," Vogelaar said.

* * *

I wondered whether "Burma" or "Myanmar" was more proper, so I asked.

Chin Duh Kam prefers "Burma," which he pronounced with great warmth. "I use the old name," he told me. Pastor David says he uses "Myanmar" in the country and "Burma" outside it.

It turns out that as far as Burmese grammar goes, "Burma" is the colloquial name of the country; "Myanmar" is the formal, literary name. But the names took on a political cast when the government decided in 1989 that it wanted the country to be officially known as the Union of Myanmar. The U. S. State Department still calls it the "Union of Burma."

As far as adjectives go, "Burman" is usually the majority ethnic group, and "Burmese" refers to nationality.

Posted by Susan Wunderink at October 16, 2007 3:12PM | Comments (2)

Last week, Opinion Journal's Naomi Schaefer Riley attended a public debate between Darwinian biologist Richard Dawkins, most (in)famous for his recent work, The God Delusion, and mathematician?Christian apologist John Lennox. The debate focused on the question, Does God exist?

What's newsworthy is not so much that the debate occurred or that it received so much press; it only takes a monthly glance at the New York Times bestseller list to see that this question, and the atheistic rants that often ensue, get our attention. According to Riley, the debate between the two Oxford scientists, which took place at the Alys Stephens Center in Birmingham, Alabama, on October 3, had been sold out for weeks prior, and received more buzz than Alabama football, which apparently is saying something.

What may be surprising to some about the debate, not least of all Richard Dawkins himself, is that many believers are eager to attend such events and to heartily engage the intellectual conclusions of each side. To watch two brilliant scientists construct arguments, and, in good English fashion, throw in some rhetorical punches along the way, is both entertaining and instructive. Dawkins and other atheist-apologists might envision Christians running away from such challenges, afraid and dejected. What they may be horrified to find out is that such debates actually spur many Christians to ask big questions, examine their beliefs, and arrive at even more robust reasoning for accepting the gospel as "gospel truth." As Riley quotes apologist Jonalyn Fincher as saying, "If our God is the God of truth, what are we afraid of?"

As a counterproposal, would Dawkins and the rest of the New Atheist league be willing to sit in for a session at next month's Apologetics Conference, featuring J. P. Moreland, William Lane Craig, and Gary Habermas? Just a thought.

*Look for our review of fellow Oxford scholar Alister McGrath's response to Dawkins in the November issue of Christianity Today.

Posted by Katelyn Beaty at October 15, 2007 3:44PM | Comments (8)

They shall know we are Christians by our love, or in some cases by our sex. Evangelicals are not only marked by conservative political views, anti-evolutionist beliefs and Ten Commandment fights. We are getting a reputation for sexiness. (Visit our past post "Making Sunday Sexy," for another example.)

The most recent witness of our sexiness is Tom Perrotta, a novelist whose newest book, according the New York Times, is not just about sex, but about evangelicals and sex.

With his latest novel, "The Abstinence Teacher," out Tuesday from St. Martin's Press, Mr. Perrotta returns to the anxious and striving contemporary suburban landscape that he has made his literary home, this time tackling the evangelical movement, which has produced chastity events like the one in Wayne.

But why is he interested in the evangelical movement on abstinence? Surprisingly, it is not primarily because he wants to mock the Christian mantra, "Save sex for marriage!" (though there could be some of that). Rather, he seems to be irresistibly intrigued with the evangelical glorification of sex.

Raised Roman Catholic (he has since lapsed), he was exposed to the self-abnegating form of religion that the evangelicals, he said, had turned on its head, particularly in regard to sex. "Catholic theology is that sex should be for procreation," he said. "But this evangelical culture really embraces orgasms and pleasure. I was really interested in that strain of Christianity that didn't want to fight American culture and that's a vibrant, prosperous and actually kind of sexy culture."

How he came to discover this sexy culture is even more interesting, and even more indicative of the growing presence of evangelicalism in the public's eye.

Mr. Perrotta said the idea for the novel emerged from the 2004 presidential election, when evangelical voters were widely credited with swinging the result for George W. Bush.

"I was surrounded by people who kept saying, ?Who are these people?'" recalled Mr. Perrotta, who has lived in Belmont, Mass., for the past eight years with his wife and two children. "I did feel somewhat inadequate as a novelist, just like I'd missed something huge happening in the country. I really did set out to kind of investigate that world."

[Perrotta] said he had no idea how an evangelical Christian audience would respond to the book. One character in particular, the aggressively pious Pastor Dennis, seems in some respects to fit a typical liberal perception of an evangelical preacher. But Mr. Perrotta said he actually admired the character's integrity and authentic caring for Tim. Above all Pastor Dennis is not a hypocrite, Mr. Perrotta said. "Like a lot of secular Americans after that first wave of evangelical televangelists crashed and burned, like Jimmy Swaggart and Jim and Tammy Faye, there was this sense of, ?I know who those people are, they're just a bunch of hypocrites,'" he said. "It took me a long time to understand that a lot of them were completely genuine.

What is especially curious about Perrotta's observations is that it appears that our biblical glorification of sex might prove to be an unexpected entrance point for engaging a sex-obsessed culture.

Posted by Kristen Scharold at October 15, 2007 2:18PM | Comments (8)

To celebrate my 60th birthday yesterday, I had dinner with the Secretary General of the United Nations. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank covered the event in his puckish (my wife called it "snarky") style.

Okay, so I had dinner with Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and 300 other people. And the Washington Post didn't even mention me. Secretary General Ban and I were only sitting at adjacent tables. But I did get a grip-and-grin photo op with him before the banquet, and after his speech I was one of three evangelical leaders invited to give a brief response.

The banquet itself was a joint effort of the National Association of Evangelicals and the Micah Challenge. It was the closing event of the NAE's semi-annual board meeting and the opening event of the Global Leaders Forum. Organizations involved in the Forum (beyond the NAE and Micah Challenge) included Bread for the World, World Relief, Frontiers, The Salvation Army, Tearfund, the Evangelical Environmental Network, the Korean Church Coalition, and the UN Foundation and the UN Millennium Campaign.

Attendees at the sold-out event got this message loud and clear:

The UN needs evangelicals to help them hold governments to their promised support for the Millennium Development Goals. One hundred ninety-two nations signed on to the MDG's in 2000 and we are now half-way to the target date of 2015, but without the progress we should have seen by this point, especially in sub-Sarahan Africa. Some nations have been slow in paying their share of the costs.

The MDG's are all good: ensuring universal primary education, fighting hunger and poverty, reducing child mortality and improving maternal health, empowering women, fighting specific diseases like malaria and HIV/AIDS, working for environmental sustainability and a global partnership for development.

Many of these things have already engaged evangelicals, and Secretary General Ban reminded us of that. He also reminded us of the UN's desire to work with faith-based groups. From its beginning in 1945, the UN was engaged with the faith community. Forty-two faith-based non-governmental organizations were involved in founding the organization. Today, 400 religious NGOs are accredited to the UN.

He also quoted Isaiah 58:10 to much applause. "If you offer your food to the hungry and satisfy the needs of the afflicted, then shall your light rise in the darkness and your gloom be as the noonday."

In a sense, last night's banquet and today's issue-oriented discussions are really less about evangelicals fighting disease and poverty and more about evangelicals working in partnerships--partnerships between Western evangelicals and those in the developing world and partnerships with non-evangelicals.

We cautiously engaged those of other shades of Christian faith and even other religions in the mid-90s when we threw tremendous weight behind the effort to pass the International Religious Freedom Act and the creation of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom. We then enlarged the circle of cooperation to work on legislation to fight sex trafficking and, later, human-rights abuses in North Korea. The circle has expanded yet again as many evangelical leaders are partnering on issues of climate change.

Partnerships give evangelicals a sense of participation and empowerment. It gives us the chance to take on really big issues. That's a strange feeling for a movement whose consciousness is rooted in old-style fundamentalism. Fundamentalism was about being the few and the proud--I mean, the pure. The evangelicalism that emerged in the 1940s hoped for a new engagement with society while maintaining doctrinal and ethical integrity. Its leaders, like first CT editor Carl F. H. Henry and first CT board chair Harold John Ockenga preached a strong social justice message. But the old fundamentalist consciousness still lurks, and these partnerships stretch the evangelical sense of identity.

Despite the uneasiness of some, leaders like Northland Church's Joel Hunter and the NAE's Rich Cizik are plunging ahead with big grins on their faces. I predict we'll see a continuing expansion of these alliances as we move to tackle an increasing number of the really big problems facing God's world.

Posted by David Neff at October 12, 2007 9:04AM | Comments (8)

A year ago, Muslim clerics wrote to the Pope, disagreeing with his characterization of Islam in a speech given at the University of Regensburg. Today, on that anniversary and coinciding with Eid al-Fitr, the holiday that marks the end of Ramadan, a larger group of Muslim scholars have written another letter to the Pope and "leaders of Christian churches everywhere."

It's a 29-page document this time, densely packed with quotes from the Quran and the Bible, but the simple thrust of it is a call for Muslims and Christians, on the theological basis of our common belief in love for one God and love for our neighbor, to work together for world peace. As the letter states in its opening paragraph:

Muslims and Christians together make up well over half of the world’s population. Without peace and justice between these two religious communities, there can be no meaningful peace in the world. The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians.

Christian response, so far, has been largely positive. Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury and spiritual leader of the more than 70-milion-member Anglican Communion, said the letter's call for respect, fairness, justice, and kindness is "indicative of the kind of relationship for which we [Christians] yearn in all parts of the world."

"The call should now be taken up by Christians and Muslims at all levels and in all countries," he continued, "and I shall endeavor in this country and internationally to do my part in working for the righteousness which this letter proclaims as our common goal."

The Evangelical Alliance, an umbrella group for U.K. evangelicals, released a statement saying that "any approach that is seeking to draw different religions into dialogue for the purpose of peace must be encouraged." Still, the statement warned, "genuine and important differences between the two faiths remain."

But more interesting than Christian response, perhaps, will be Muslim response. Of the 138 scholars, some are known to be liberal, according to Dudley Woodberry, professor of Islamic studies at Fuller Theological Seminary, but at least one has ties to the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. It will be interesting to see what kind of commentary emerges from outlets like Al Jazeera (which hasn't covered the letter online yet at all).

CT will likely post further analysis of the letter in the days to come. In the meantime, you can read the full text of the document on the BBC's site.

Posted by Madison Trammel at October 11, 2007 10:38AM | Comments (10)

A new United Nations report, "State of the Future," points to signs of progress across many measures of human development. The document concludes, "People around the world are becoming healthier, wealthier, better educated, more peaceful, more connected, and they are living longer." According to an analysis by Stephen Moore:

World-wide illiteracy rates have fallen by half since 1970 and now stand at an all-time low of 18%. More people live in free countries than ever before. The average human being today will live 50% longer in 2025 than one born in 1955.

To what do we owe this improvement? Capitalism, according to the U.N. Free trade is rightly recognized as the engine of global prosperity in recent years. In 1981, 40% of the world's population lived on less than $1 a day. Now that percentage is only 25%, adjusted for inflation. And at current rates of growth, "world poverty will be cut in half between 2000 and 2015"--which is arguably one of the greatest triumphs in human history. Trade and technology are closing the global "digital divide," and the report notes hopefully that soon laptop computers will cost $100 and almost every schoolchild will be a mouse click away from the Internet (and, regrettably, those interminable computer games).

It also turns out that the Malthusians (who worried that we would overpopulate the planet) got the story wrong. Human beings aren't reproducing like Norwegian field mice. Demographers now say that in the second half of this century, the human population will stabilize and then fall.

Yet despite all this progress, much of what hear these days in the mainstream media seems designed to scare us about global warming, environmental destruction, crumbling families, rampant crime, Islamofascism, and global terror. And while these dangers may (or may not) be real, certainly it can't be un-Christian to give thanks to the One who rules unseen in the affairs of human beings, causing his rain to fall on the just and the unjust. Many of the causes of these good gifts result from the influernce of Christianity, including political freedom, economic growth, and the rise of modern science. Surely a person of faith can see the glass as half-full, at least sometimes. We don't always have to claim the sky is falling.

Granted, the world still has major problems (such as the fact that more than a billion people subsist on a dollar a day or less). But what does Christianity, which calls the poor blessed and offers mankind real peace, have to say to a world that increasingly feels rich and unthreatened? What do Christians who seek to meet felt needs to introduce people to Christ do when people feel no needs? If your main appeal is helping people to feel better in the here and now, what do you say when they already feel good? And given the fact that the church often grows amid suffering, what happens when there is no suffering? Yes, the kindness of God is intended to lead us to repentance, but sometimes it seems as if few are so led.

Certainly felt needs do not always match real needs. And Christianity teaches that our real, most basic need (whether we know it or not) is forgiveness of our sins in order to have life with God. No matter how much comfort and convenience ths world offers, it cannot give us a relationship with God. Only Christ can do that. How do we communicate the Good News in this context? It hasn't worked out too well in affluent Western Europe, has it?

One final thought: This talk of human progress and development is eerily reminiscent of talk a hundred or so years ago that the 20th century was to be the "Christian century." Then came the Great War. Then Hitler. Then Stalin. What started so brightly turned to chaos in the space of a few years. With the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the decoding of the human genome (with all its potential for good and ill), may the same history not repeat itself in our day.

But there are no guarantees.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at October 10, 2007 10:01AM | Comments (4)

Tom Butler represented the Church of England at a House of Lords consultation on organ donation in the European Union yesterday. He presented the church's position that organ donation is a very Christian thing to sign up for, BBC news reports.
"Giving oneself and one's possessions voluntarily for the well being of others and without compulsion is a Christian duty of which organ donation is a striking example," the Church of England's statement says. It also says Christians have "a mandate to heal" - but they're not talking about miracle working.
The Church of England is supporting a switch from an opt-in (to organ donation) to an opt-out system, hoping to help Britain overcome a chronic organ shortage, which can be an ethically tricky problem to solve. Their statement addresses a few of the issues, such as selling organs for profit, making sure the donor is dead, and respect for the body and the bereaved.
"What is done with the body matters," the Church of England affirms. "The body at its burial or cremation should ideally be recognizably the body of the person who has died."

Posted by Susan Wunderink at October 9, 2007 12:00PM | Comments (0)

National [insert your own cause] awareness days are popping up all over the country, and the Church is no exception.
One Indianapolis-area church Sunday sermon sparked interest from local media. "You heard him correctly: It's Porn Sunday" headlined the Indianapolis Star's article. The Crux Church joined hundreds of churches across the nation who observed National Porn Sunday yesterday, sponsored by Xxx.church.com, an online ministry aimed at Christians who are addicted to porn.

"I mean, how many times have you heard your pastor say ?porn' from the pulpit?" Crux's lead pastor, Daron Earlewin, tells the Star.

The Daily News in Florida reports that a 15-foot tall inflatable, blue elephant is mailed to participating churches across the country as mascot for National Porn Sunday.

"We are basically going to confront the big elephant in the pew," Robert Pooley, senior pastor of Coast Community Church told the newspaper.

But is the pulpit the place for the big blue elephant, or should it be addressed within individual counseling? What Bible verses do these preachers use?

These pastors desire to preach on issues that may have been overlooked in the past, but how do pastors make sure that they are not overlooking more traditional themes (pride, love, evangelism) that may not be as "sexy"?

"I think it may be one of the biggest problems that no one wants to talk about," the Crux pastor says.

These pastors aim bring the issue out into the open, but could normalizing pornography make it an issue for those who had never found it to be a problem in the first place?

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at October 8, 2007 12:09PM | Comments (12)

A story in today's Chicago Tribune illustrates one of the tensions of living in an increasingly secular society. The article, "Religious-based education on trial: Christian high schools sue University of California, alleging bias in admissions," discusses a lawsuit that an association of Christian schools is suing the University of California because "the admissions policy at the university unconstitutionally discriminates against them because they teach from a religious perspective."

More specifically the plaintiffs claim that "UC follows the policy of rejecting any course in any subject, even if it teaches standard content, if it adds teaching of the school's religious viewpoint."

The University denies it, of course: "That statement simply is not true," said Christopher Patti, counsel for UC. "There is no prohibition on religious content in UC a-g courses," he said. "If the course adequately teaches the subject matter and adequately teaches the skills that students need in that subject, then the fact that it may also make reference to other theories doesn't disqualify it, even religious theories."

Without knowing more the details of the case, on the surface it seems like another battle in the culture wars than in cultural confusion.

The University, for example, refused to give credit for a course called, "Course: Special Providence: Christianity and the American Republic," the text of which was "American Government for Christian Schools" (Bob Jones University Press). The reason rejected was that " Content was not consistent with the "empirical historical knowledge generally accepted in the collegiate community."

Now this could indicate that the University has a narrow, Enlightenment understanding of what constitutes history--it may, for example, rule out miracle a priori as an explanation for an event.

Or it could mean that the textbook and class have not prepared students to participate in classes and conversations that will take place in a modern, secular university on the topic of history. A university has the right and obligation to ensure that when students step on campus, they are familiar with terms, theories, and perspectives that constitute the conversation on campus on any given topic.

Christian schools have an obligation not only to teach from a Christian perspective, but to thoroughly immerse their students in the worldview and perspective of the secular university if they expect them to attend there. This strikes me as a reasonable requirement of the university, but a necessary requirement of those who hope to bring Christ's salt and light to academia. If we demonstrate that we have not listened to or thoroughly understood the point of view of those with whom we disagree, why would they ever give our point of view a hearing?

Posted by Mark Galli at October 8, 2007 11:17AM | Comments (6)

CT Senior Writer Deann Alford reports:

Rami Ayyad, manager of Gaza's only Christian bookstore, was found dead of multiple stab and gunshot wounds early Sunday, October 7.

Ayyad, 26, was kidnapped at 4:30 p.m. Saturday as he closed The Teacher's Bookshop, which is operated by the Palestinian Bible Society and located in a central part of Gaza City. No one has claimed responsibility. But Ayyad had received regular death threats for his work as the public face of the bookshop.

The interior ministry of Hamas, the ruling power in Gaza since the June ouster of its political rival Fatah, has issued a statement condemning the murder, the Associated Press reports. An AP story said Hamas has launched an investigation.

On Friday, October 5, Ayyad noticed a car lacking license plates following him, according to a Palestinian Bible Society press release. On Saturday at 6 p.m. Ayyad phoned his wife that he had been kidnapped by a group of people right after he had closed the bookstore. Ayyad told his wife that he would return home late that evening. Ayyad placed a second call with a similar message to someone else. At that time, a Bible Society official reported the incident to police in Gaza City.

According to a Reuters report:

Ayyad's mother, Anisa, said her son had telephoned his family after he was seized. "He said he was going to be with the 'people' for another two hours and that if he was not back (by then), he would not be returning for a long, long time," she said.

At 6:25 a.m. Sunday October 7, Ayyad's body was found near the bookshop. "Signs of bullets and knife stabs could be clearly seen on his body," the Bible Society release said. Unconfirmed reports added that his head had been severely injured.

Ayyad leaves behind two young children and his pregnant wife, Pauline. Ayyad helped lead Gaza Baptist Church's Awana club and directed the church's summer children's camp.

On April 15, a bomb destroyed much of the shop's downstairs storefront, but no people were injured in that attack. On February 3, 2006, local militants detonated two small pipe bombs, destroying the shop's doors. Following that assault, the Christian bookshop's workers found a communiqué demanding the shop close immediately.

Gazan authorities had no confirmation of who was responsible. A secretive group calling itself "The Sword of Islam" has carried out similar bombings of Internet cafes in Gaza.

At the time of the February attack, many Gazans gathered for a pro-bookshop rally to encourage the Bible Society to reopen the shop. The shop reopened five weeks later.

In addition to offering Bibles and Christian books, the shop, which opened in 1998, offers public computer classes and other educational opportunities to Gaza's 1.4 million people, many of whom are jobless and destitute.

The Palestinian Bible Society's Gaza ministry includes relief work in Gaza's refugee camps and community health, educational, microenterprise, and development projects.

The Bible Society said in its statement:

"The Bible Society in Gaza has received previous threats and vandalism. However, the support from the community has been very well noticed because of the humanitarian role that the Bible Society has been taking the last four years in the strip."

Gaza's dwindling Christian population of under 5,000 remains in shock. For the most part, Palestinian Muslims and Christians have dwelled peacefully together for centuries in this area of the Middle East.

During a phone interview with Christianity Today, a Christian worker who recently left Gaza and asked not to be identified said that Ayyad's death marks the first time in memory that a Palestinian Christian has died for the gospel.

The worker told CT that he believes Ayyad's murder was committed by non-Palestinians likely affiliated with Al Qaeda.

"The long tradition of coexistence between Palestinian Muslims and Christians doesn't mean anything to them," the worker said. "This is a campaign to purge Muslim lands of all 'infidels.' That includes Christians as well as Jews.

"All things work together for good. God has a purpose for letting this happen. It will not silence the church."

On Sunday, the Associated Press reported from the funeral:

The report included this comment:

"He paid his life for his faith, for his dignity, and the dignity of the Bible and Jesus Christ," said Issa, a 24-year-old Christian who came to pay his respects at Ayyad's home. "I am terrified and cannot believe this has happened in Gaza," said Issa, declining to give his last name because of the tense atmosphere.

Posted by Tim Morgan at October 7, 2007 9:49PM | Comments (12)

Officials of Aurora, Illinois, have given their approval for a massive new abortion clinic run by Planned Parenthood to open today. Yesterday the county states attorney found that PP had committed no criminal wrongdoing despite hiding the true nature and ownership of the $7.5 million facility while applying for a permit. In a report in today's Chicago Tribune, PP supporters were jubilant--and unrepentant about their misdirection--while opponents promised to continue the fight:

"This is not just a victory for Planned Parenthood, but also a victory for women and families in that area who want access to health care," said Steve Trombley, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood/Chicago Area.

Opponents said they intend to continue to fight the clinic in court, at the City Council, and with round-the-clock protests and prayer vigils.

If all this facility provides is health care, I wonder why PP had to resort to stealth tactics to get it approved. What would supporters say if a bar, a casino, or a strip club moved into their neighborhood using such methods? I'll bet they wouldn't be crowing about "access."

Posted by Stan Guthrie at October 2, 2007 8:54AM | Comments (7)

New Saint Andrews College, the original classical Christian college in Moscow, Idaho, has been forgotten within the media hype surrounding Patrick Henry College - a more recently established classical Christian college in Virginia.

It seems that the two colleges are at odds. Patrick Henry College might be on a "mission to save America," to quote the title of Hanna Rosin's new book profiling the school, but according to a quote in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine from Doug Wilson - NSA's founder - New Saint Andrews is "trying to save civilization."

According the writer of the New York Times Magazine story, Molly Worthen - who is writing a book about evangelical intellectual life - NSA is outspoken about differentiating itself from their classical higher-ed counterpart:

When you ask teachers and students what sort of school New St. Andrews is, they often cite one school they are not: Patrick Henry College, the evangelical college in Purcellville, Va., with a reputation for training home-schooled Christian students to wrest the reins of power from "secular humanists" in Washington. "We believe in a much longer view," says Joshua Appel, a professor at New St. Andrews.

And again:

[NSA's] curriculum is a "reformation in higher education," says Roy Atwood, the college president. "The last thing we wanted to be was a Liberty University or a Patrick Henry. We are not interested in political takeover." Patrick Henry - which requires classical core classes and offers a major in classical liberal arts as well as more political fields - hemorrhaged faculty and students a year ago as a debate over academic freedom and the role of the liberal arts in Christian education divided the campus. "I wonder if the N.S.A. people are right," says G. T. Smith, a philosophy professor who left Patrick Henry after the turmoil.

Is this rivalry just another example of what should be like-minded partnering but instead is a divisive "We are right. You are wrong." mentality?

Posted by Kristen Scharold at October 1, 2007 12:35PM | Comments (20)