Lewis definitely lived at a time in which people were more certain across the board that empirical, straight-line rationality was the way you decided what truth was, and there's just not as much of a certainty now. Also, when Lewis was writing, people were able to follow sustained arguments that had a number of points that built on one another. I guess I should say we actually have a kind of rationality-attention-deficit disorder now. You can make a reasonable argument, you can use logic, but it really has to be relatively transparent. You have to get to your point pretty quickly.

I don't think they're irrational, they are as rational, but they want something of a mixture of logic and personal appeal.

On why believers should doubt:

Sacramone: You say early on in The Reason for God that a little doubt is necessary to test the integrity of your faith. Does this mean that Christians need to become amateur apologists to some extent, to be ready to give an answer for the hope that is within them?

Keller: I don't mention it in [The Reason for God], but I think there are always doubts that, if you come to grips with them - I think there's doubts that you have, that you always have, that you ought to be more forthright and address them, for two reasons. One is, then you're a better apologist. Because now people are coming shootin' stuff at you in a way they wouldn't when I was growing up.

As I was reading [N. T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God], I realized I was coming to greater certainty, and that when I closed the book, I said, at a time when it was very important to me to feel this way, I said, "He really really really did rise from the dead." And I said, "Well, didn't I believe that before?" Of course I believed it before - I defended it, and I think before I certainly would have died for that belief. But actually, there were still doubts in there, and the doubts were taken down 50 percent or something. I didn't even know they were there. And it was a wonderful experience It was both an intellectual and emotional experience: You're facing death, you're not sure you're going to get over the cancer. And the rigorous intellectual process of going through all the alternative explanations for how the Christian Church started, except the resurrection - none of them are even tenable. It was quite an experience.

On dealing with creation and evolution:

How could there have been death before Adam and Eve fell? The answer is, I don't know. But all I know is, didn't animals eat bugs? Didn't bugs eat plants? There must have been death. In other words, when you realize, "Oh wait, this is really complicated," then you realize, "I don't have to figure this out before I figure out is Jesus Christ raised from the dead."

Tim Keller is taking the book tour to Veritas forums at various colleges throughout the U.S.

Posted by Susan Wunderink at February 26, 2008 2:43PM | Comments (0)

Christian music legend Larry Norman died Sunday of heart failure, according to his brother Charles Norman. He was 60.

Norman, a blonde, long-haired rocker who is often called the father of Christian rock music, was a giant in the Christian music industry, Chris Willman, senior music writer for Entertainment Weekly told Christianity Today.

Read the full obituary.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 25, 2008 9:07PM | Comments (12)

In a CT article by Cindy Crosby published just over two years ago, novelist Anne Rice--famous for her dark stories about vampires--spoke of her return to her Catholic faith and said she would from now on write about Christ. While she did not repudiate her earlier work, saying it was a record of her spiritual journey, she said she was through with vampires:

I would never go back, not even if they say, 'You will be financially ruined; you've got to write another vampire book.' I would say no. I have no choice. I would be a fool for all eternity to turn my back on God like that.

And for a while, she was true to her word, writing the first two works in a series about the life of Christ. The second, Christ the Lord: The Road to Cana, is due out on March 4. After a planned third installment on Jesus, Rice plans to return to her vampire chronicling. But isn't that going back on her word? Rice answers Time this way: "I don't see it as a violation of my promise, because I won't be writing about vampires in the same way." And indeed, her new promise--to put the stories in a Christian framework with an accent on redemption--sounds interesting. But Time isn't buying, commenting: "Still, it is difficult to see it as anything but a change of heart."

I cannot pretend to see into Anne Rice's soul, but to me this is a troubling turn of events. Whatever the merits and drawbacks of writing one final vampire novel, her vow was all-encompassing, seemingly linking her eternal destiny to keeping it. I am reminded of the following verses:

When you vow a vow to God, do not delay paying it, for he has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you vow. It is better that you should not vow than that you should vow and not pay. Let not your mouth lead you into sin, and do not say before the messenger that it was a mistake. Why should God be angry at your voice and destroy the work of your hands?

UPDATE: For Anne Rice's explanation of her decision, see her official website.

Anne Rice responded to this blog post today:

Thank you for your gentle write-up of my casual remark in a Time interview regarding Christ the Lord, the Road to Cana. My vow to the Lord was that I would write for Him, and for Him alone from then on (2002). I will keep that vow. If this new vampire book, which is no more than an idea, cannot be entirely Christian and redemptive in content, if it cannot be for the Lord, I assure you, it will not be written.

My vocation is to continue the story of Our Lord's life on Earth and I am doing it. --- it's amazing how this small remark to Time's interviewers became something I never imagined. --- I've been flooded with emails for three years about having left my old characters, and more than once it has been suggested to me that they could be revisited in a redemptive or Christian framework. That was the idea.

And by the way, the book is no more than a dream. The consecration to Christ that I made in 2002 is rock solid, thank Heaven, and I pray for the faith and strength to maintain it.

- Anne Rice

Posted by Stan Guthrie at February 25, 2008 8:45AM | Comments (13)

"I'm not a math guy. I'm more of a miracle guy."

The words of Mike Huckabee a few minutes ago on "Saturday Night Live's" mock news show "Weekend Update." The former Arkansas governor was there to explain, in self-deprecating form, why he remains in the race for the Republican presidential nomination even though he'd still be trailing John McCain if he swept each and every remaining delegate.

"Mike Huckabee does not overstay his welcome," he said. "When it's time for me to go, I'll know. And I'll exit out with class and grace."

He then remained behind the anchors' desk, even after anchor Seth Meyers made it clear it was time to go.

This article was cross-posted at The God Blog.

Posted by Brad Greenberg at February 24, 2008 2:33AM | Comments (14)

While Bruce Gierson’s article, "An Atheist in the Pulpit," in the most recent issue of Psychology Today often devolves into a spiritual travelogue of clergy de-conversion, it does alert us to some of the personal and practical dilemmas raised when persons involved in professional ministry come to realize they doubt their beliefs.

Given that Gierson is writing for Psychology Today, it should come as no surprise that the story focuses on the "deeply inauthentic" feelings and accompanying "psychic stress" that results from a disconnect between a minister's public preaching, pastoral care, or performance of the liturgy, and his or her private doubts or disbelief. His clergy characters are often cast as heroes who live by Shakespeare's line--"to thine own self be true"--and uphold the "inviolability of the individual conscience." Better to be true to self than keep one's commitments, however far removed they now seem.

To be fair, I have sometimes wondered, in my contemplation of ordained ministry, but what would I do when those desert seasons of doubt and despair come, as they regularly have, in my own life? Would it be OK for me to hide in and behind the liturgy, in and behind the text, in and behind the prayers of the saints gathered around me, at least for a time? I'm not sure I ever came up with good answers to those questions, or the basic question behind them: Is there room for doubt in the life of a minister of the Church? I'm not talking about settled or aggressive disbelief, but those dark periods that befall many Christians. In short, I'm sympathetic to the plight of ministers who find themselves unable to be for their flock what that flock often want them to be--a paragon of faith and hope.

It's a shame that Gierson never addresses this question from the other side of the pulpit, except through the perceptions of the clergy he interviewed. If a minister is bold enough to share his or her doubts with a congregation, what should the congregation do? Should they come alongside and pray for their minister? The answer to that seems obvious enough. Should they help him or her organize a sabbatical or leave of absence? If the minister is willing to continue, would the congregation mind knowing that their pastor was, for a time, working from obligation or a desire to keep a commitment, rather than from a living, burning, hearth of faith? (Would any marriage last were not a similar commitment in place?) And, if the minister did eventually come to a place of settled disbelief, how should that be handled?

These are by no means easy questions. It's good that Gierson is raising them, if only indirectly.

Posted by Derek Keefe at February 22, 2008 11:39AM | Comments (13)

The situation for Christians, their churches, and pastors has taken a turn for the worse as violence in Sri Lanka is on the rise. The cease-fire between the government and the main rebel group, the Tamil Tigers, is pretty much history

Compass Direct reports:

Late last Sunday (February 17) two men gunned down a Sri Lankan pastor, the Rev. Samson Neil Edirisinghe, 37, killing him instantly. They also shot his wife Shiromi, 31, leaving her in critical condition. The couple’s 2-year-old son received minor injuries and is still in shock after witnessing the shooting. Edirisinghe was buried today in Ampara, in eastern Sri Lanka, where he served as pastor of the House of the Lord Church. The church met in a local YMCA (Young Men’s Christian Association) hall where Edirisinghe taught English classes for the British Council. Shiromi was receiving treatment in the intensive care unit of Ampara Hospital at press time.

The Advocacy Desk of the National Christian Evangelical Alliance of Sri Lanka has released an important statement, condemning the killings and calling for the national police to do more. In their statement, the NCEASL said:

Organized attempts by any individual or group to breed religious tension and incite religious hatred - be it in Ampara or anywhere else, must be condemned by all right thinking people irrespective of religious affiliation and calls for urgent action by the Government to put a stop to this ugly trend.

It is disturbing to see the widening gulf between the ethnic groups in our country confounded by
the erosion of trust between religious communities. Recent media reports on the arrest of a Pastor for alleged involvement in LTTE activity has seen a veil of suspicion drawn over Christians. It is the sacred duty of the Government and the law enforcement authorities to conduct impartial investigations and deal with any guilty party under the law and release without
prejudice those who are found innocent.

We strongly condemn the murder of Pastor Neil Edirisinghe and the attack on his family. We call upon the IGP and the Police force in Ampara for immediate and impartial investigation whereby those responsible for this crime will be dealt with under the law.

We pray for the restoration of peace and understanding between communities and individuals in
our nation.

Christians in Sri Lanka in recent years have seen surges of violence, sometimes targeting them, and sometimes just as the result of the unresolved conflicts at the national level.

The highly regarded International Crisis Group on Feb. 22, 2008, released an important update on how Sri Lanka has returned to a climate of conflict.

Look here for a 2004 article in The Weekly Standard.

Posted by Tim Morgan at February 22, 2008 9:44AM | Comments (0)

The board that oversees New York's 71 remaining OTB (off-track betting) parlors has voted to close them, according to an article in the New York Times. Apparently, they are no longer profitable for the city of New York.

People are already mourning the demise of OTBs because of the unique social atmosphere they provide. (The article is strong on atmospherics.)

Here's the quote caught my eye in that article. A regular at the OTB on Seventh Avenue at 38th Street told the Times reporter:

"Wherever you have gambling, you're going to have rich guys and beggars next to each other," observed ... Eric Quinones, 40. "And that's what makes these places unique."

Oh, wait a minute. I thought that having "rich guys and beggars next to each other" was supposed to be the church. As a matter of fact, it is what the church is called to be.

And from what I read in Christianity Today, New York's churches are doing a pretty amazing job. (See this important article by Tony Carnes from December 2004.)

Cross-posted at the Ancient Evangelical Future blog.

Posted by David Neff at February 22, 2008 9:03AM | Comments (0)

Churches will be able to host big-screen Super Bowl parties in 2009 thanks to the NFL's reversed decision this week.

The NFL had received criticism for its decision, and the Washington Post reported that churches were canceling their Super Bowl parties out of fear of lawsuits. In a later Post story titled "Bill Would End Separation of Church and Super Bowl," three congressmen spoke with the Post about potential legislation.

The Post reports that the NFL will allow church showings as long as the showings are free and are on premises that the church uses on a "routine and customary" basis.

The NFL restricts TV screens to 55" at public viewings, except at bars and restaurants that regularly broadcast sporting events. Last year, the NFL sent letters to two churches advising them of the policy. The new policy will be set in place for 2009.

CT also wrote about NFL/church dispute in "Fumbling Religion" last fall.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 22, 2008 6:49AM | Comments (0)

One scholar's answer makes that question seem like a trick. It can be found in the new issue of the Atlantic Monthly, which follows the November issue of The Economist and asks the question, "Which Religion Will Win?" Inside are articles on "The Contest for Africa," which Rob Moll discussed here, "America's Evangelical Future" and "The Coming Religious Peace."

The last piece is what really caught my attention. I wondered, How could this be? How could we be primed for religious peace after a history of warfare, from David collecting the foreskins of 200 slain Philistines to the 500-year-long and mostly bloody war between Catholics and Protestants to the hatred between Sunnis and Shiites (and Kurds for that matter) preventing Iraq from creating a cohesive society?

The answer, according to scholar and scribe Alan Wolfe, is simple: None.

Consider what is occurring within the growing American evangelical movement. It has built megachurches that meet the needs of time-pressed professionals by offering such things as day-care centers, self-help groups, and networking opportunities. Its music owes more to Janis Joplin than to Johann Sebastian Bach. Its church officials learn more from business-school case studies than from theological texts. And its young people - well, as the children of parents who have gone through a born-again experience, they are not likely to be as obedient as the evangelical leader James Dobson wants them to be. Having opted to grow on secular terms, American evangelicalism is becoming less hostile to liberal ideas such as tolerance and pluralism. New efforts to take it in directions sympathetic to environmentalism and social justice are a direct result of the maturing of the faith, which followed from earlier decisions to make the movement more appealing to large numbers of Americans, especially the young.

Does the pattern hold outside America? After all, it is often said that the promulgation of secular values and lifestyles, one result of globalization, is prompting a reactionary religious backlash. There is some truth to this argument, but it misses the bigger picture. Most of the religious revivals we are seeing throughout the world today complement, and ultimately reinforce, secular developments; they are more likely to encourage moderation than fanaticism.

Agree or disagree with the prediction, there is logic to Wolfe's argument, one he borrows from Marx and Freud and Weber.

Wolfe writes, "When God and Mammon collide, Mammon usually wins," which is a bit too broad but often rings true. Nowhere is there more Mammon for most than in the United States, and religion has responded to the many demands placed on our lives in the pursuit of Mammon by making participation more convenient and more entertaining.

But, at the same time, the churches that are hiring the MBA-carrying applicants, the churches that are growing, are also the churches less tolerant of the tenants of secularism. Whereas the churches that are more traditional, the churches that are dying, are on the liberal end of the Christian spectrum.

If you look at a graph produced by the magazine, based on data from Pew, it's incredibly clear that the United States is anomalous for the religious devotion of its denizens.

But does this mean American religion is destined for a "bubble burst," so to speak? I don't think so. The talk of the U.S. going the way of Europe -- of empty churches and godless worldviews -- is overblown. Especially when considering the fact that right now Mammon is becoming a lot harder to come by.

This article was cross-posted at The God Blog.

Posted by Brad Greenberg at February 22, 2008 3:45AM | Comments (4)

From Religion News Service's Adelle Banks:

Evangelist Billy Graham returned home Tuesday (Feb. 19) after undergoing a procedure to relieve pressure in his brain.

Graham, 89, underwent the elective procedure on Feb. 13 at Missions Hospitals in Asheville, N.C. Physicians said he was progressing well after they replaced a valve for a shunt that regulates the pressure within his brain.

Graham has hydrocephalus, or a buildup of fluid on the brain that can cause symptoms similar to Parkinson's disease. He recently had experienced more intense symptoms, which led to his hospital stay.

During his time in the hospital, Graham was visited by three of his children who live near his Montreat, N.C., home and received a phone call from President Bush.

Posted by Susan Wunderink at February 20, 2008 4:24PM | Comments (5)

The Jim Wallis road show pulled into the editorial officials of CT yesterday. Jim still turns out in fine form with his signature black jacket and turtleneck; and, this time, was accompanied by a surprisingly large entourage. Wallis, author of God's Politics, is talking about his new book, The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith & Politics in a Post-Religious Right America.

There are several core ideas resident in this book and (full disclosure) I'd much rather interact with Wallis than read his prose. (The Publishers Weekly reviewer observed: "As a cohesive book...this has a rough and clunky sensibility, with considerable repetition of ideas, examples and even phrasing.")

The ideas in Great Awakening include:
1. The Religious Right as we have understood it from the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan is dying out.

2. It is being replaced by a younger generation of evangelicals who are post-Religious Right, under age 30, progressive and holistic in bringing together faith, mission, and justice.

3. This new reality will reshape the American evangelical landscape and in turn have a lasting impact on changing the American nation-state into a more compassionate country with political leaders who link values and policy in what Wallis calls "non-violent realism."

4. These developments neatly fit into American religious history. Wallis enthusiastically places a headline-grabbing label "Great Awakening" on these socio-political developments, thereby linking them with historic Great Awakenings, dating all the way back to colonial America and the First Great Awakening.

But there's a fly in this ointment, I think.

One big problem is that there is sooo much rhetoric out there about revival, renewal, and the next awakening. These three terms do not have agreed-upon definitions or boundaries, nor are these words exclusively reserved for Christian use.

One significant perspective on awakenings is the book, Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism. The Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Fogel authored this title in 2002. It's been years since I looked at this book, but I don't believe you can fully understand changes happening in American society without this top economist's analysis.

Fogel notes:

To understand what is taking place today, we need to understand the nature of the recurring political-religious cycles called "Great Awakenings." Each lasting about 100 years, Great Awakenings consist of three phases, each about a generation long.

In this generation-long cycle, where are we today? Well, Fogel dates the start of the Fourth Great Awakening in 1960. By following Fogel's three-phase approach, Americans are now in the third phase of the Fourth Awakening. The first phase is religious revival. The second phase is rising political effect. The third phase is increasing challenge to the dominance of the political program.

If, indeed, we are in the Fourth Awakening, Phase III, in which the current political program is being challenged increasingly, it makes sense that Sen. Obama's mantra is "Change We Can Believe In."

"MO-bama-menum" seems to know no bounds and it may carry him into the White House in the November election.

Finally, let me put another card on the table for consideration. In a web commentary, titled "The Emerging Evangelical Center May Decide 2008 Election," Christian ethicist and author David Gushee notes:

It is quite possible that the votes of centrist evangelicals - perhaps representing as many as one-third of our nation's massive evangelical community - will decide the election this fall.

I believe that the emerging evangelical center represents a maturing of the Christian public voice in American life. This is a more peaceable, forward-looking, holistic and independent approach to politics than what has come to carry the evangelical label. Its emergence is good for our nation and for evangelicals. Centrist evangelicals bear watching in this election and beyond.

Gushee shares the view with Wallis that the old-guard Christian Right is being eclipsed. That part makes sense to me. The evidence is all over.

The piece of the puzzle that I don't think any one has yet fully understood at the 50,000-foot level is the spiritual dynamic driving the change. My questions are:

* Is it a rebirth of historic Christian orthodoxy?

* Is it a third wave of the Holy Spirit?

* Is it a culture war-like reaction against globalizing pluralism and secularism?

Posted by Tim Morgan at February 20, 2008 9:45AM | Comments (26)

I wonder how the findings in this article--"Conservatives Just Aren't Into Academe, Study Finds:Divergent life choices may explain the dearth of right-wing scholars," (Chronicle of Higher Education)--apply to Christian higher education.

It has been my experience that Christian college professors are more liberal than their students and than Christians in general, and that politically conservative professors are an increasing minority. But my experience is limited to a handful of colleges, and I'm willing to be challenged on this.

The article shows its own subtle liberal bias, especially in the way it frames liberal and conservative motives, but the larger issue remains, and I suspect even for Christian colleges. If true, this has all manner of consequences when it comes to offering students a balanced and intellectually rigorous education.

(Cross-posted at Galliblog)

Posted by Mark Galli at February 19, 2008 7:24AM | Comments (21)

Controversial biblical scholar Bart Ehrman has a new book out, but this time he's not bent on tackling issues of scriptural discrepancies, as he did in his most (in)famous work, Misquoting Jesus (see Books and Culture's review from 2005). This time, Ehrman founds his agnosticism on the Bible's seemingly equivocal answers to the question, How can a loving God allow terrible things to happen to people?

"I realized I couldn't explain any longer why there could be such pain and misery in the world that was supposedly ruled by an all-powerful and loving God," the religion professor at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, told the San Diego Union-Tribune over the weekend. The problem of suffering "put me over the top," says Ehrman. "So, I became an agnostic."

God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question - Why We Suffer (HarperOne) traces Ehrman's change in convictions about God and Scripture based on his inability to reconcile the goodness of God with the suffering of man. Ehrman explores and ultimately disputes the way suffering is handled in biblical accounts: as punishment for wrongdoing (Genesis), as an outcome of others' wrongdoing (throughout the Psalms), as part of redemption (the Gospels), or as part of the mystery of God (Job).

Ehrman finds these varied explanations problematic, as he does chalking the question of theodicy up to something beyond human knowledge: "If you say it's a mystery, then what you're saying is there's no answer." And having no answer is apparently insufficient for Ehrman.

For other agnostics, though, encountering believers who have profound hope and peace despite suffering is enough to at least crack a window open for belief. This is what happened to John Marks, a former 60 Minutes producer who traces his journey into and out of faith in his new spiritual memoir, Reasons to Believe: One Man's Journey Among the Evangelicals and the Faith He Left Behind (Ecco). In a striking interview in this weekend's Boston Globe, Marks tells of a close friendship with an evangelical couple, the McWhinneys, that emerged from Marks's research for his book:

When I first met the McWhinneys, [I thought] they were almost walking caricatures of the evangelical Christian. They believe in the Rapture, that when the end time comes, people will be taken up into the air, and the nonbelievers will be left behind on earth to suffer. There was a cardboard quality, I thought, to their belief.

When I met them the second time, after we'd done the "60 Minutes" piece, they told me about their bipolar son, roughly my age, who had tried to kill himself [and] had disappeared and was believed to be living in a homeless shelter in Dallas and whom they had decided to commit. They spoke with great sorrow. They didn't say he was possessed by the devil. They resented that characterization - and remember, these are Christians who believe there is a living Satan. We agreed I would join them for church [the following] Sunday.

Five hours later, their son walked up the onramp of a highway and was killed by a car. On Sunday, I got in the car, we were having a chat, and then Don suddenly told me their son had been killed. [He said] his son was not gone - he was walking the streets of the heavenly city, and we know from Revelations that that city has walls made of pure jasper - describing this world that, for nonbelievers, is just pure fantasy. I became aware of the way this sense that God is real, that there is this heavenly kingdom - it is not window-dressing. In moments of grief and deep sorrow, people like the McWhinneys do reach for this, and it is the consolation.

While believers may not be able to give a thoroughly coherent reason for why God allows his followers to suffer - and debates about theodicy will likely continue among theologians until Judgment Day - we may at least be able to provide a glimpse into "the peace that passes all understanding" as we respond to crises in our own lives and come out praising the Creator for his unbounded goodness.

Posted by Katelyn Beaty at February 18, 2008 3:02PM | Comments (8)

Sometimes Americans United for Separation of Church and State is misguided in its zeal. But, in this case, the one lacking wisdom was Pastor Wiley S. Drake, who last week used First Baptist Church of Buena Park letterhead and an affiliated radio program to endorse Mike Huckabee for president. That's a violation of tax laws for nonprofits, and Americans United filed a complaint. Drake's response was a bit vengeful.

In an e-mail Thursday, Drake urged action against Americans United and the American Civil Liberties Union.

As he had in August, Drake quoted Psalm 109, which speaks of wicked and deceitful people and asks God to let such a person's days be few and let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.

"In light of the recent attack from the enemies of God, I ask the children of God to go into action with imprecatory prayer," he wrote.

Imprecatory prayers have been defined as praying for someone's misfortune or as appeals to God for justice.

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director, called Drake's appeal to his supporters "reckless and repugnant."

"Introducing this kind of religious extremism into American life is reprehensible," he said.

This article was cross-posted at The God Blog.

Posted by Brad Greenberg at February 16, 2008 3:54PM | Comments (11)

Wolfe is the editor of Image: A Journal of the Arts and Religion, and author of Malcolm Muggeridge: A Biography.

Arts & Faith
The largest and most dynamic online bulletin board on the subject of the intersection between art and faith, this site covers all art forms, but its literary section alone contains over 500 illuminating discussions of every sort of writing.

Image
In nearly two decades of publication, Image has become one of America's leading quarterlies, featuring original fiction, poetry, and creative nonfiction, along with interviews, book reviews, and essays on other art forms. Contributors include Annie Dillard, Kathleen Norris, Bret Lott, and Mary Oliver. Its website offers exclusive features, an online forum, and blog.

The Master's Artist
This site is an excellent example of a group blog, a true community of like-minded but highly individual writers. As they put it, they are "united by the blood of Christ and a love for language." Topics range from the state of Christian publishing to craft issues to lyrical meditations on writing as a spiritual discipline.

Nimble Spirit Review
Nimble Spirit Review is the lengthened shadow of Michael Wilt, who has spent many years working in the publishing business. A voracious reader, Wilt has posted dozens of short, graceful reviews of classic and contemporary books in all literary genres, including children's literature. On the site you can also find poems, essays, and interviews by a number of other writers, including Luci Shaw.

Stonework
Based at Houghton College and edited by poet John Leax, Stonework is an online literary magazine that publishes semiannually. Stonework has become a gathering place for such distinguished poets, essayists, and storywriters as Diane Glancy, Robert Siegel, and Julia Kasdorf.

Posted by Susan Wunderink at February 15, 2008 2:15PM | Comments (3)

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has the details here. Also keep an eye on his website.

Posted by Ted Olsen at February 14, 2008 12:52PM | Comments (1)

This is why I am so consistently wary of the role of religion in politics. JTA has a short story about Steve Cohen's opponent refusing to condemn this flier because she hadn't seen it, as if hearing those words weren't enough. It would be fair to say "Steve Cohen doesn't share the beliefs of black Christians" but what I don't understand is why the language has to be so inflammatory. Oh wait, that's right. This isn't about religion, at least in as much as it's not about racism. It's about politics.

This article was cross-posted at The God Blog.

Posted by Brad Greenberg at February 14, 2008 10:51AM | Comments (3)

Events in the global Anglican Communion are going from bad to worse. On Feb. 12, an official governing body of the Anglican Province of Uganda announced that they will not be attending the once-per-decade Lambeth gathering of Anglican bishops from around the world. (Nigeria and Rwanda have also indicated they will not attend. Kenya will decide in April.)

Ugandan Anglicans place the blame at the feet of revisionist and "unrepentant" American Episcopal Bishops and a compromised, ineffective Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, saying:

This decision has been made to protest the invitations extended by the Archbishop of Canterbury, The Most Rev. and Rt. Hon. Rowan Williams, to TEC Bishops whose stand and unrepentant actions created the current crisis of identity and authority in the Anglican Communion.

Look here for the full statement released late on Wednesday, Feb. 13.

Meanwhile, in the western suburbs of Chicago, I attended a Wednesday lunch meeting with a senior American Anglican leader who said in essence that the time may soon come for orthodox Anglicans to create some kind of new global structure because of repeated failures of ABC Williams to hold "revisionists" accountable for proceeding with gay ordinations and same-sex rites and for advocating a host of other non-orthodox revisionist teachings.

This leader who spoke at an invitation-only event anticipates creation of a new Anglican Province in North America that orthdox Anglican leaders would recognize. These leaders would then create some kind of new global entity.

Recent hopes that the Anglican Covenant would provide a means to hold revisionists accountable, he said, have been diminished severely because the redraft of the covenant, released in the last 10 days. "Everyone can sign it," he said. Which is a problem since conservatives viewed the drafting of an Anglican Covenant as an acceptable means to create a coherent orthodox majority within the global Anglican Communion anchored around orthodox/reformed theology.

Of course, there has been much speculation for months, if not years, about creation of a new global Anglican body. Now there is more than speculation among conservative Anglicans. They are beginning to strategize what it would look like to have global Anglicanism apart from Canterbury. It seems like those conservatives who have pursued the "inside strategy" of working within TEC and exisiting Anglican procedures (such as the Windsor process) are now reconsidering their strategy.

Finally, the statement from Uganda indicates that conservative Anglicans increasingly see the June event GAFCON, currently slated for Jerusalem, as the focal point for conservative action prior to the Lambeth gathering, starting in mid-July.

Posted by Tim Morgan at February 13, 2008 9:52PM | Comments (8)

Religion, he feels, is the main source of his strength, and because he realizes not everybody shares that feeling today, he sometimes refers to "the challenge of being in the minority in the world." ... "I don't try to be overbearing in what I believe, but, given a chance, I will express my beliefs."

If I told you that line was in reference to a star athlete, I wouldn't imagine you could guess whom. A number of sports stars, and journeymen, come to mind when I think of faith and basketball or baseball or football. And afflicted-minority syndrome is increasingly popular with Christians in America today.

But, surprisingly, I came across those lines last night in John McPhee's "A Sense of Where You Are," the profile he wrote more than 40 years ago of basketball great Bill Bradley, a white man of not-so-humble means who was educated at Princeton, the citadel of the American Presbytery. Hardly a typical minority.

This article was cross-posted at The God Blog.

Posted by Brad Greenberg at February 13, 2008 10:38AM | Comments (0)

The New York magazine article, "Learning to Lie: Kids lie early, often, and for all sorts of reasons - to avoid punishment, to bond with friends, to gain a sense of control. But now there's a singular theory for one way this habit develops: They are just copying their parents," by Po Bronson is full of insights about the subject.

The author, and the researchers he quotes assume that that many social graces (like complementing a host for meal that I didn't particularly like, or telling a telemarketer that one is too busy to talk) are also lies, if white lies. I disagree, and the author's views in this case surely raise the stats on lying. But that is to quibble. Lying remains much more common, deliberate, and conscious among children and teens than we are likely to acknowledge sometimes?and I have no reason to think that this isn't a phenomenon in Christian families.

Two passages I found particularly interesting:

Most parents hear their child lie and assume he's too young to understand what lies are or that lying's wrong. They presume their child will stop when he gets older and learns those distinctions. Talwar has found the opposite to be true - kids who grasp early the nuances between lies and truth use this knowledge to their advantage, making them more prone to lie when given the chance.

Many parenting Websites and books advise parents to just let lies go - they'll grow out of it. The truth, according to Talwar, is that kids grow into it. In studies where children are observed in their natural environment, a 4-year-old will lie once every two hours, while a 6-year-old will lie about once every hour and a half. Few kids are exceptions?.

And one more intriguing passage:

? In her study of teenage students, Darling also mailed survey questionnaires to the parents of the teenagers interviewed, and it was interesting how the two sets of data reflected on each other. First, she was struck by parents' vivid fear of pushing their teens into outright hostile rebellion. "Many parents today believe the best way to get teens to disclose is to be more permissive and not set rules," Darling says. Parents imagine a trade-off between being informed and being strict. Better to hear the truth and be able to help than be kept in the dark.

Darling found that permissive parents don't actually learn more about their children's lives. "Kids who go wild and get in trouble mostly have parents who don't set rules or standards. Their parents are loving and accepting no matter what the kids do. But the kids take the lack of rules as a sign their parents don't care - that their parent doesn't really want this job of being the parent."

Pushing a teen into rebellion by having too many rules was a sort of statistical myth. "That actually doesn't happen," remarks Darling. She found that most rules-heavy parents don't actually enforce them. "It's too much work," says Darling. "It's a lot harder to enforce three rules than to set twenty rules."

A few parents managed to live up to the stereotype of the oppressive parent, with lots of psychological intrusion, but those teens weren't rebelling. They were obedient. And depressed.

"Ironically, the type of parents who are actually most consistent in enforcing rules are the same parents who are most warm and have the most conversations with their kids," Darling observes. They've set a few rules over certain key spheres of influence, and they've explained why the rules are there. They expect the child to obey them. Over life's other spheres, they supported the child's autonomy, allowing them freedom to make their own decisions.

The kids of these parents lied the least?.

Posted by Mark Galli at February 13, 2008 10:30AM | Comments (2)

Not so long ago, the average mid-twentysomething had achieved most of adulthood's milestones - high school degree, financial independence, marriage, and children. These days, he lingers - happily - in a new hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance. Decades in unfolding, this limbo may not seem like news to many, but in fact it is to the early twenty-first century what adolescence was to the early twentieth: a momentous sociological development of profound economic and cultural import. Some call this new period "emerging adulthood," others "extended adolescence"; David Brooks recently took a stab with the "Odyssey Years," a "decade of wandering."

But while we grapple with the name, it's time to state what is now obvious to legions of frustrated young women: the limbo doesn't bring out the best in young men. With women, you could argue that adulthood is in fact emergent. Single women in their twenties and early thirties are joining an international New Girl Order, hyperachieving in both school and an increasingly female-friendly workplace, while packing leisure hours with shopping, traveling, and dining with friends [see "The New Girl Order," Autumn 2007]. Single Young Males, or SYMs, by contrast, often seem to hang out in a playground of drinking, hooking up, playing Halo 3, and, in many cases, underachieving. With them, adulthood looks as though it's receding.

So begins an article by Kay S. Hymowitz, "Child-Man in the Promised Land: Today's single young men hang out in a hormonal limbo between adolescence and adulthood," published in City Journal.

I've had a few conversations recently with 20-something women about 20-something men. The women, to say the least, are not impressed with their counterparts. This article explains, in part, why that might be so--even in the Christian community. While some of the behavior described does not fit the Christian subculture, the larger picture seems to.

I'm not sure what "the answer" is, but Hymowitz does us a service by simply naming the problem.

(Cross posted on Galliblog)

Posted by Mark Galli at February 12, 2008 4:24PM | Comments (25)

Michael Lindsay has, through extensive interviewing, tapped into a feature of American evangelicalism that's both fascinating and frustrating: two distinct social tiers. He identified these as the "populist" and "cosmopolitan" groups, which he wrote about in Faith in the Halls of Power. But there's another way of looking at evangelicals that divides them - much along the same lines - into elite and non-elite Christians.

The separation is fairly deep, it seems. So deep that they don't really go to church together. In fact, Lindsay writes in Monday's USA Today, many of the evangelical elite (including George W. Bush) hardly go to church at all:

I spent the past five years interviewing some of the country's top leaders - two U.S. presidents (George H.W. Bush and Carter), 100 CEOs and senior business executives, Hollywood icons, celebrated artists and world-class athletes. All were chosen because of their widely known faith. Yet I was shocked to find that more than half - 60% - had low levels of commitment to their denominations and congregations. Some were members in name only; others had actively disengaged from church life.

Everybody loses out, Lindsay says: "Community is a virtue for most religious traditions, but evangelicals have excelled at it. Declining church commitment among these leaders, therefore, is ripping at the very fabric that has distinguished American evangelicalism."

He addresses the reasons for this (frustration with the way churches are run) and the issue of where these elites do have Christian fellowship (exclusive Bible studies, parachurch ministry boards), and takes them gently to task for elitism.

But he doesn't give them the assignment of solving the problem - in this article, that's meted out to clergy.

Organized religion is perhaps the one factor that could motivate people to bridge the gap between rich and poor, especially now as more of the faithful move into the halls of power. To turn the tide, clergy around the country must engage and draw in these leaders. Otherwise, affluent believers will continue to leave their congregations - and their fellow believers - behind in their ascent, creating a gated community of the soul.

Posted by Susan Wunderink at February 12, 2008 10:30AM | Comments (16)

Religious freedom in the Middle East moves three steps forward, two steps back in a judicial ruling in Egypt on Saturday.

Compass Direct News Service reports:

Egypt's top administrative court has ruled in favor of 12 converts to Islam seeking to return to Christianity but has left the group vulnerable to discrimination by mandating their former religion be noted on official documents. In his ruling Saturday (February 9), Judge El-Sayeed Noufal ordered Egypt's Interior Ministry to issue the converts "Christian documents" noting their "ex-Muslim" status. Human rights activists heralded the decision as a breakthrough for religious freedom in Egypt, where conversion away from Islam, though not illegal, has been forbidden in practice. But human rights advocates remained wary, saying that listing the converts' former religion on their documents would make them vulnerable to discrimination. "It's obviously a stigmatization to have ["ex-Muslim"] on your ID card," a representative for the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights told Compass.

Look here for the full story.

Posted by Tim Morgan at February 11, 2008 5:39PM | Comments (4)

Zogby International conducted a survey for Faith in Public Life on how evangelicals voted in Missouri and Tennessee, but the polling firm has been asking the evangelical/born-again question of Democrats since the January 19 Nevada caucuses. PBS’s Religion and Ethics Newsweekly scored the data, and it’s Hillary across the board on the Democratic side.

In every contest, Hillary Clinton bests Barack Obama among white evangelicals, and her support is significantly higher among evangelicals than among white Protestants in general. It was closest in California, where 40 percent of white evangelicals likely to vote in the Democratic primary said they’d vote for Clinton and 38 percent said they’d vote for Obama (among white Protestants, the numbers were 38 percent and 43 percent respectively). White evangelical Democrats went 43/24 for Clinton in Georgia, 59/24 in Missouri (FPL’s post-election survey put it at 54/37), and 59/27 in New Jersey.

But the Zogby data also has numbers for non-whites who identified as evangelical or born again (that’s a rare thing in these kinds of surveys), and while Obama is overwhelmingly winning this group (often by a 2-to-1 margin or better), Hillary is doing significantly better with this group than she is with non-white Protestants in general.

Unfortunately, the Zogby data at the Religion and Ethics Newsweekly site doesn’t give us the broad breakdowns, so we don’t know how many evangelicals said they were likely to vote in a Democratic primary or caucus compared to those who said they were likely to vote in a Republican one. We don’t know how many Democratic voters identified as evangelical, or how many of these were non-white.

But what we do know is that Hillary is doing better among evangelicals than she is among Protestants in general. And that’s a surprise, especially since most pundits have assumed that Obama, not Clinton, is the evangelical favorite on the Democratic side.

See, pollsters? Asking the evangelical question gets you surprising data that news organizations like to talk about!

Posted by Ted Olsen at February 11, 2008 12:40PM | Comments (15)

Faith in Public Life has been complaining that exit polls have asked only Republicans whether they’re evangelical or born again. Last week, they decided to do something about it, and surveyed voters in Missouri and Tennessee to see how evangelicals were really voting.

In both states, one-third of voters who identified as evangelical or born again voted in the Democratic primaries.

"Comparatively, only one in four white evangelical voters in Missouri and Tennessee supported Senator John Kerry in the 2004 general election," the organization noted in its press release. In a press conference announcing its poll data, Faith in Public Life’s panelists similarly suggested that the number reflects something new.

"The presumed lock on evangelical voters by the Republican Party is breaking down," Robert P. Jones said.

Sojourners head Jim Wallis likewise proclaimed, "The media is operating with an outdated script. … Things are changing. Evangelicals are leaving the religious right in droves."

But many political scientists have noted that evangelical support for Bush, particularly in the 2004 election, was probably an anomaly. Evangelicals have for the past several decades largely split two-thirds for Republicans, one-third for Democrats. Bill Clinton did particularly well among evangelicals, especially in 1992, drawing between 35 percent and 40 percent of the evangelical vote. If the evangelical vote is shifting, it’s probably more accurate to say it’s shifting back to pre-Bush levels.

(The good stuff after the jump...)

When asked about this, Jones insisted that the numbers do not represent a return to form, and said that young evangelicals in particular are less likely to identify with the Republican Party. He pointed to a recent survey he co-authored from Third Way, which showed one-fifth of evangelicals are progressives (i.e. liberal), one-third are moderates, and one-half are conservatives.

Evangelicals made up a sizable block in the Democratic primaries surveyed: 19 percent in Missouri (where 55 percent of the Republican primary voters were evangelical) and 29 percent in Tennessee (where 73 percent of the Republican voters were evangelical).

In Tennessee, the evangelical percentage in the Democratic primary was the same as white men and all black voters, and nearly three times that of union members. In Missouri, the evangelical vote for Democrats was the same as the senior citizen vote and larger than the black vote and union-member vote. (I’m comparing the FPL numbers on evangelicals with exit poll data for the other groups, which is not quite apples and oranges but a bit like comparing Fujis and Granny Smiths.)

Hillary Clinton triumphed in both states among evangelical Democrats. That’s a bit of a surprise, especially since CT’s informal online polling showed Obama way ahead among our readers. But in both states surveyed, the numbers for white evangelicals look an awful lot like the white vote in general. In Tennessee, Obama actually did worse among white evangelicals (12%) than among all whites (20%; the exit poll data had Obama’s white support at 26%).

In Missouri, Obama’s support was the same among white evangelicals and all whites, but Clinton’s support was slightly lower among evangelicals than with all whites. Still, the 54 percent of the evangelical vote that Clinton won in that state is considerably more than the support she got from all Democratic voters. Obama won the state by about 10,000 votes of more than 820,000 cast, but he and Clinton received the same number of convention delegates.

Zogby International conducted the survey, which has a margin of error of +/- 5 percentage points. Faith in Public Life and the Center for American Progress Action Fund paid for the survey.

Posted by Ted Olsen at February 11, 2008 11:43AM | Comments (1)

The Bible is the most read, translated, and packaged book in history. There are Bibles for soldiers, teens, dispensationalists, the reformed, golfers, and on and on. The latest effort to contextualize and target the Scriptures is The Manga Bible, just out from Doubleday.

Manga, a Japanese-inspired form of the graphic novel, is a big seller right now, so many will see its marriage with Scripture as a match made in heaven. However, this is not your father's (or mother's) Bible, according to a story in The New York Times.

The medium shapes the message. Manga often focuses on action and epic. Much of the Bible, as a result, ends up on the cutting room floor, and what remains is darker.

"It is the end of the Word as we know it, and the end of a certain cultural idea of the Scriptures as a book, as the Book," Timothy Beal, professor of religion at Case Western Reserve University, said of the reworking of the Bible in new forms, including manga. "It opens up new ways of understanding Scripture and ends up breaking the idols a bit."

While known for characters with big eyes and catwalk poses, manga is also defined by a laconic, cinematic style, with characters often doing more than talking.

In a blurb for the Manga Bible, which is published by Doubleday, the archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, is quoted as saying, "It will convey the shock and freshness of the Bible in a unique way."

No doubt. In the Manga Bible, whose heroes look and sound like skateboarders in Bedouin gear, Noah gets tripped up counting the animals in the Ark: "That's 11,344 animals? Arggh! I've lost count again. I'm going to have to start from scratch!"

Posted by Stan Guthrie at February 11, 2008 11:19AM | Comments (4)

Religion coverage in The Atlantic is typically well done. The magazine's coverage of the neutering of religion from The Golden Compass was interesting for the way it treated both Hollywood and the anti-religious themes of the book on which the movie was based. Though the magazine retains the secular, above the fray, attitude toward faith of its New England founding, it also put Philip Jenkin's article on the New Christendom on the cover in October, 2002, when his book describing the phenomenal growth of non-Western Christianity debuted.

So, the magazine's March cover story (not yet online) on the literal battle between Christianity and Islam in Nigeria is equally well done, despite some mistakes.

Eliza Griswold - daughter of the former presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church - writes from the town of Yelwa, where an attack that killed Christians in church in 2004 brought on a more gruesome response against Muslims killing hundreds. Yelwa is in Nigeria's Middle Belt, which, Griswold writes,

marks the fault line between Christianity and Islam not only in Nigeria, but across the entire continent. A satellite image from Google Earth shows the Middle Belt as a gray-green strip between the equator and the 10th parallel, dividing the fawn-colored dry land from the vibrant sub-Saharan jungle canopy. It also separates most of the continents 67 million Muslims to the north from 417 million Christians to the south.

Because of the 20th century explosion of Christianity in Africa, by the year 2050, Griswold writes, the demographic and geographic center of Christianity will be in northern Nigeria, where the country's Muslims live. This fact makes any tensions in the country religious ones. With 140 million people, oil revenues that never seem to help the people (half of whom live on less than a dollar a day) thanks to government corruption, and a changing regional climate that has wiped out many traditional livelihoods, the country has plenty of tensions.

"Every crisis is automatically interpreted as a religious crisis," an Anglican archbishop says. "But we all know that, scratch the surface and it's got nothing to do with religion. It's power."

Power, in this democracy (despite massive corruption) is a numbers game. Christians and Muslims compete for numbers - converts. And to do that, they not only use intimidation (Griswold quotes Archbishop Peter Akinola saying that Muslims do not have a monopoly on violence), Christians and Muslims appeal to want what Nigerians need most - prosperity.

Pentecostalism has brought along American prosperity theology. (Griswold doesn't seem able to separate Pentecostalism from prosperity theology.) And, in the competition for souls, Nigeria's Muslims have come up with an Islamic approach to making people wealthy.

Griswold suggests that, while violence between Christians and Muslims is still a threat, this sort of competition - non-violent pursuit of winning hearts and minds - is growing.

Hopefully she's right. The stories of murder, rape, and intimidation (all justified by either side's scripture) are horrifying. Yet, Griswold doesn't offer much to hang that hope on other than the story of an imam and a pastor who gave up leading militias to work together for peace. It's inspiring, but she gives little evidence of their effectiveness. And Griswold, despite her father's Christian leadership, doesn't seem to fully understand the Christianity she's reporting on, much less Islam. For example, she says Pentecostals "share an experience of the Holy Spirit, or the numinous, that offers the gift of salvation and success in everyday life." (italics are mine. At least she didn't spell it like Rob Bell.) And Muslims have yet to show that they can treat minorities as equals, instead of "protected" classes or worse.

Still, the article, and it's companions by Alan Wolfe (on how religiosity really is decreasing with modernization) and Walter Russell Mead (on American evangelical political moderation) are worth reading.

Posted by Rob Moll at February 10, 2008 10:51AM | Comments (2)

Lithuanian Catholics have an incredibly odd, and I would say bigoted, Lent tradition of dressing up as heavily stereotyped, grotesque Jews -- haggling peddlers with big noses, sidelocks and hideous features. The Forward has the story and reports that Jews in Vilna don't complain because they don't want to cause conflict.

During Carnival - or Uzgavenes, as it is known in Lithuania - Catholics from around the world congregate for a feast of foods prohibited during Lent. The festival usually involves a parade or circus, with attendees in masks and costumes. But in Vilnius - commonly known to Jews as Vilna - participants traditionally dress and act "as Jews," a feat that generally calls for masks with grotesque features, beards and visible ear locks and that is often accompanied by peddling and by stereotypically Jewish speech.

And I thought Mardi Gras was a strange, unholy tradition.

This article was cross-posted at The God Blog.

Posted by Brad Greenberg at February 10, 2008 1:45AM | Comments (6)

In a recent speech, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, said that England should make room for Sharia law to solve certain types of issues. Though it was a nuanced lecture, it was widely sensationalized in the British dailies on Friday, and still the lead story in The Times today. See the BBC link for the current state of the story, and lots of supplementary material, including the text of his lecture, "Islam and English Law," given at Lambeth Palace.

Coming from the head of the world's third largest church communion in the context of one of the world's most vibrant democracies, it is, to say the least, a provocative suggestion, even when nuanced. In an increasingly pluralistic world, where religion remains a vital component of most people's lives, it is something the U.S. will have to face into at some point.

Posted by Mark Galli at February 9, 2008 3:45AM | Comments (13)

Lost in the media storm preceding and following Super Tuesday, and the actual storms that debilitated or devastated much of the US that same day, was media coverage of the start of Lent, arguably the most recognized of the exclusively Christian seasons on the Church's liturgical calendar. In reviewing English-speaking coverage of this turning of the seasons, I was struck by the difference between US media reports and those issuing from across the pond in the UK.

US stories were generally conventional - though sometimes oddly technical or whimsical - and documented an approach to the season that was consistently pious, yet often private in scope, focusing on interior spiritual attitudes or individual struggles of the will in forgoing chocolate, coffee, alcohol, or insert-your-weakness-of-the-flesh-here for the 40-day period. (Jane Hawes's article is notable in its attempt to balance both the private-public and negative-positive dimensions of the season.)

Stories from the UK, on the other hand, conveyed a theological posture toward Lent that emphasized the public dimension of Christian commitment. Most notable is the Tearfund carbon fast mentioned by Tim Morgan in an earlier blog, which was launched by the Anglican bishops of London and Liverpool, and backed by Archbishop Rowan Williams, as well as scientist Sir John Houghton, an evangelical who formerly chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's scientific assessment. The proposal received considerable coverage in UK press (Daily Telegraph; The Guardian; BBC News; New Consumer), though its only mentions in the US were on one or two blogs, a university newspaper, and an ezine.

Also worth mentioning is the Lent Endurance Challenge issued by the UK organization Church Action on Poverty, and backed by several Anglican bishops, as well as Catholic, Methodist, and Baptist church leaders in the UK. The Challenge is to live the life of a refused asylum seeker for one week, which involves donating one's normal weekly food budget in exchange for ?3.50 and the typical food parcel supplied to the homeless by local charities. The hope is to give participants a glimpse into the life of these "living ghosts," who are "essentially airbrushed out of existence as ?failed' asylum seekers," but, lacking money to return home, remain in the UK, unnoticed or ignored by society at large.

These constructive and creative public applications of Christian theological commitments make my own internal ruminations about whether I should give up coffee or fried foods for Lent seem, if not entirely inconsequential, unimaginative and blatantly disengaged from my neighbor and the world. If Lent is about submitting to suffering for the sake of identification with our Lord, whose own suffering was always for the sake of carrying forward God's redemptive intent for the whole world, navel-gazing US Christians like me may want to look across the seas to spark our flickering theological imaginations.

Posted by Derek Keefe at February 8, 2008 4:16PM | Comments (1)

In Washington this week, conservatives held a press conference on Thursday to call public attention to efforts in Congress to "radically" rewrite PEPFAR, President Bush's signature program to fight HIV/AIDS globally.

In his 2008 State of the Union, President Bush said:
"Our Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief is treating 1.4 million people. We can bring healing and hope to many more. So I ask you to maintain the principles that have changed behavior and made this program a success." Instead, the Democrats have decided to radically change or abandon the principles of this widely successful program. Their radical rewrite will pour billions into the hands of abortion providers with little or no regard for the pro-life, pro-family cultures of recipient countries. It also strips provisions that ensure priority funding for the highly effective abstinence and fidelity programs, which have reduced HIV rates in African nations that have implemented it. The Democrat proposal also strips the provision that forbids grants to groups that do not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking--a provision designed to combat exploitation of women in recipient countries.

In addition to members of Congress, Saddleback church's senior pastor Rick Warren and author Chuck Colson attended the press event. A transcript of remarks are not available. But most if not all of these conservatives will speak out in favor of the controversial program designations that:

* 33 percent of prevention funding go toward programming that promotes sexual abstinence before marriage and sexual fidelity within marriage; and,

* The grant ban should be maintained on groups that do not have a policy statement opposing sex trafficking and prostitution.

The 33 percent represents tens of millions of dollars available for such programs, which liberals and others brand as basically a waste of money.

Critics of PEPFAR's existing prevention programs are turning up the heat rhetorically. Pamela Barnes, head of the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS foundation said on Thursday:

Proposals to maintain partisan, ideologically-driven mandates that constrain countries' abilities to respond to their own epidemics threaten the continued success of the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).

The bottom line is that not providing people with what they need to protect themselves is a sin. The abstinence earmark skews the programs and gives short shrift to all the other prevention efforts that need to be undertaken as well.

And, they are aiming for $50 billion, not the $30 billion that the Bush administration has asked for. This afternoon, PHR media coordinator/AIDS Campaign Katie Krauss released an exclusive statement to CT via email, which in part says:

We were surprised to see a great deal of controversy regarding PEPFAR reauthorization recently, and wanted to explain what we are after. We want PEPFAR to be a bigger program so that it can save more lives. It's already started at least a million people on HIV treatment.

Women
African women are especially vulnerable to HIV--more than 60% of adults in subSaharan Africa are women, and as many as 75% of young people with HIV there are women and girls. We want PEPFAR to really go after this problem and develop science-based programs (with local authorities and local NGOs that understand the culture) to solve it.

Integrating AIDS Services with Reproductive Health Services and basic health care
There is some money now to treat AIDS in parts of Africa, but no money for basic health care or for reproductive health services (NOT including abortion; it's illegal to use US tax dollars for abortion). So now there are clinics where women are dying in childbirth, when right next door women with AIDS get much better medical care. Our field nurses and doctors have seen this first hand and find it very frustrating. What is needed is one place where women can get regular health care and AIDS care - integrated health care. This would also help the many women who are too embarrassed to walk into an AIDS clinic, fearful they will be abandoned by their families if people find out they are HIV-positive.

Programs that prevent mother-to-child transmission and treat both mom and dad for HIV after baby is born. These are called Prevention of Mother-to-Child Transmission Plus programs. They keep both mom and dad alive (instead of just baby, as regular prevention of mother-to-child transmission programs inadvertently do), stabilize communities, and prevent untold misery.

Africa's health worker shortage
There is also a desperate need for more health workers - according to the World Health Organization at least a million more are needed. Many clinics operate with one or two health workers, who may be on call around the clock, every day and see 100 patients per day. Or there may be no health care at all because of the shortage. We want PEPFAR to train and retain at least 140,000 more health workers, and help build long-lasting solutions to this crisis.

Abstinence
In prevention, as always, we've supported lifting the abstinence earmark because the overwhelming evidence is that abstinence-only programs (for adults) don't work; see the 2006 report from the General Accounting Office that showed that they impeded effective AIDS prevention. Of course we support abstinence for kids.

For adults, we support a comprehensive approach where education about condoms, abstinence, communication, fidelity, etc. is available. In other words, provide all the information, and let the adult decide what will work best for them. [Much more research is needed to better understand what is driving the very high infection rates in subSaharan Africa.]

Saving lives by keeping up with the epidemic. If funded at $30 billion over five years, the US would be treating only 100,000 new patients per year, when millions of people will die without treatment. We want more money to expand HIV treatment (and prevention) to keep up with the pandemic.

The PEPFAR reauthorization is under active consideration at the committee level in the House and Senate. Billions of aid dollars and many lives hang in the balance within this bill -- which is likely to be among the few major pieces of legislation to move through Congress in this election year.

tmorgan@christianitytoday.com

Posted by Tim Morgan at February 8, 2008 4:08PM | Comments (0)

The Wheaton College student newspaper, The Record, reports today that the influential evangelical college's president, provost, and chaplain have removed their names from a letter to Muslim leaders that has attracted criticism in some quarters.

"Loving God and Neighbor Together" was published in the November 18, 2007, New York Times as a response to an October statement from 138 Muslim scholars and clerics calling for interfaith cooperation. Wheaton College president Duane Litfin and provost Stanton Jones were among the signatories, along with pastors Rick Warren and Bill Hybels, National Association of Evangelicals president Leith Anderson, Youth With a Mission chairman Lynn Green, Frontiers mission founder Greg Livingstone, theologians Miroslav Volf and John Stott, and Christianity Today Media Group editor-in-chief David Neff.

"I signed the statement because I am committed to the business of peace-making and neighbor-love," Litfin wrote in The Record. "I did not savor the document's unnuanced apology section, but swallowed that in order to be a part of reaching out a hand to these Muslim leaders who had courageously taken the initiative. Though the statement was not written in the way I would have written it, it seemed to me that I could sign it without compromising any of my Christian convictions."

But in the last month, the statement has been sharply criticized by several other evangelical leaders, including Southern Baptist Theological Seminary president Al Mohler, pastor John Piper, and Focus on the Family's CitizenLink newsletter.

(A Christianity Today news report on the statement and its critics appears in the March issue of the magazine; we'll post it online shortly.)

Such critiques, Litfin said, prompted him to rethink his signature. "[O]n this occasion my eagerness to support the statement's strengths caused me to move too quickly," he wrote. Rereading the statement, he says, he found it was

not carefully enough crafted to avoid encouraging that basic premise of civil religion, i.e., that we are all worshiping the same God, climbing the same mountain, just taking different paths. It appears to me that the statement could have been written so to avoid this problem while still reaching out a gracious hand to these Muslim leaders. ? To speak unqualifiedly of "our common love for God," as if the Quran's Allah and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ are one and the same, and as if what it means to "love God" in these two faiths means the same thing, is to say more than I am willing to grant. I do not criticize others who do not share these qualms. But as for me, I needed to back away.

Litfin emphasized that he was not pressured or even encouraged to take his name off the statement. "No one had suggested it or even knew I was taking this step,' he said. "It was simply a matter of conscience, combined with the fact that I had put the College on the line in a way I was no longer comfortable in defending."

And in fact Litfin implicitly answered some critics who had argued that interfaith dialogue undercut evangelism:

As to the related question this incident raises of evangelism and inter-faith dialogue, surely the best answer is a balanced one. If we truly believe the Gospel and love our neighbor, evangelism will lie near the core of our relationships without occupying the whole of it. Our friendships with non-Christians transcend evangelism in the sense that those friendships continue even when Christ is not received. In other words, our friendship is not contingent upon that reception. But nor can any genuine friendship with non-Christians exclude an evangelistic concern. Our relationship may be in pre-evangelistic phase, or evangelistic phase, or a post-evangelistic phase, but a desire to see our friend find Christ must never disappear from the frame. If our love is genuine, we will always retain sight of our friend's deepest need and stand ready to serve it if the opportunity arises.

Jones and Wheaton College chaplain Stephen Kellough said they agreed with Litfin's conclusions, and similarly withdrew their names to further distance the college from the statement. Roy Oksnevad, director of Muslim Ministries at Wheaton College's Billy Graham Center, kept his signature on the document, and told the Record, "I still agree [with the statement]. I don't have reservations."

Also of note in the Record this week: presidential candidate Mitt Romney had wanted to hold a rally on the campus two days before Super Tuesday, but was turned away. "Only in extraordinary circumstances do we open the college community to Sunday activities," Jones told the student paper. "Particularly a political event at noon on Sunday is very incongruent with our religious identity."

More articles on the Muslim statement, "A Common Word Between Us and You" and the Christian statement include:

• An early call from Fuller Seminary's J. Dudley Woodberry for a Christian response to "A Common Word."
• NAE president Leith Anderson on why he signed "Loving God and Neighbor Together"
• Mike Edens of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary on why he signed.
• Rick Love, International Director for Frontiers, responding to John Piper's concerns.

Posted by Ted Olsen at February 8, 2008 12:23PM | Comments (16)

Here's the text of James Dobson's endorsement of Mike Huckabee as sent out last night to the e-mail subscribers of CitizenLink:

Dr. James Dobson issues the following statement tonight, speaking as a private citizen.

I am endorsing Gov. Mike Huckabee for President of the United States today. My decision comes in the wake of my statement on Super Tuesday that I could not vote for Sen. John McCain, even if he goes on to win the Republican nomination. His record on the institution of the family and other conservative issues makes his candidacy a matter of conscience and concern for me.

That left two pro-family candidates whom I could support, but I was reluctant to choose between them. However, the decision by Gov. Mitt Romney to put his campaign "on hold" changes the political landscape. The remaining candidate for whom I could vote is Gov. Huckabee. His unwavering positions on the social issues, notably the institution of marriage, the importance of faith and the sanctity of human life, resonate deeply with me and with many others. That is why I will support Gov. Huckabee through the remaining primaries, and will vote for him in the general election if he should get the nomination. Obviously, the governor faces an uphill struggle, given the delegates already committed to Sen. McCain. Nevertheless, I believe he is our best remaining choice for President of the United States.

(NOTE: Dr. Dobson made these statements as a private citizen. This article is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as a reflection of the opinions of Focus on the Family or Focus on the Family Action.)

Posted by David Neff at February 8, 2008 5:43AM | Comments (29)

Eric Gorski of the Associated Press scores the scoop.

Posted by Ted Olsen at February 7, 2008 9:32PM | Comments (0)

Mitt Romney suspended his bid for the Republican nomination today.

He said that if he continued, it would "forestall the launch of a national campaign, making it easier for Sen. Clinton or Obama to win."

"If this were only about me, I'd go on. But it's never been only about me. I entered this race because I love America, and because I love America, in this time of war I feel I have to now stand aside for our party and for our country. This is not an easy decision for me. I hate to lose."

Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic describes how the crowd did not know it was coming and began to boo after they figured it out.

"Now, I disagree with John McCain on many issues," he said, drawing a chorus of anticipatory boos -- they thought Romney was going to start to attack McCain. "But I agree with him on doing whatever it takes to be successful in Iraq."

See the full transcript for Romney's comments on religion in his speech.

"Americans love God, and those who don't have faith, typically believe in something greater than themselves - a "Purpose Driven Life."

The former Massachusetts governor, former investment banker, and leader of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City was criticized for his flop flopping on issues like abortion. A Pew Forum survey found that 36 percent of evangelicals were reluctant to vote for a Mormon.

See previous post for more coverage.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 7, 2008 12:14PM | Comments (3)

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney will suspend his bid, CNN just reported.

Romney is expected to announce his decision Thursday afternoon at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, three Republican sources told CNN.

The news comes just after the former Massachusetts governor vowed to stay in the race.

Romney, who drew much attention for his Mormon beliefs, split evangelicals votes at 31 percent with Mike Huckabee (34 percent) and John McCain (29 percent). See CT's illustration of how the states broke down.

Previously, pundits were wondering where Huckabee's votes would go if he were to drop out. Now the question flips. Where will Romney's votes go?

Romney's decision comes after Focus on the Family's James Dobson said that while he would not vote for McCain, he would vote for Romney or Huckabee.

"My theology is very, very different, obviously, and I would not find myself in agreement with the ways he sees Scripture, and, of course, their own interpretation and extension of Scripture. I'm not in any way minimizing that; it's a very important issue.

"I think we're facing such a point of crisis in our country, that we're going to have to have the strongest leadership we can. And I think I could deal with that in the polling booth."

Previous CT coverage on Romney includes an interview with the candidate:

Latter-Day Politics | Mitt Romney believes American values, not Mormon doctrine, should rule a President.

Mitt's Mormonism and the 'Evangelical Vote' | Can conservative Protestants vote for a member of what they consider a cult?

Romney Dodges Doctrine | But questions about candidate's Mormon beliefs may continue.

What Evangelicals Heard in Romney's 'Faith in America' Speech | What the candidate said will largely be welcomed. But questions remain about what wasn't.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 7, 2008 11:30AM | Comments (1)

Taliban officials recently told media outlets that the South Korean government paid at least $4 million for the release of 21 hostages.

Newsweek reports that an anonymous senior commander said the South Korean government delivered the cash to the insurgents in the Pakistani frontier city of Quetta.

Twenty-three church volunteers were abducted in July while traveling in Afghanistan on a medical-aid trip. The missionaries were released after six weeks and two men were killed.

The commander told Newsweek that the Taliban knew that U.S. and Afghan intelligence were closely watching the hostage negotiations that were taking place between South Korean and Taliban officials so they agreed on a secret payoff.

South Korea has been criticized for negotiating with the Taliban. After the hostages were released, Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi told the Associated Press that he plans to abduct more foreigners, reinforcing fears that South Korea's decision would create more hostage situations.

A South Korean presidential secretary told Newsweek, "We aren't aware of any new developments in the case. Our government position is we didn't pay any ransom for the hostages."

Considering the Taliban's militant reputation and that they spoke on the condition of anonymity, it is difficult to trust anything the officials say.

Kidnapping foreign citizens is not new. In 2003, Christianity Today covered Philippines missionary Gracia Burnham, who believed her husband would be alive if someone had paid a proper ransom. CT has also covered the United State's Kidnapping Policy.

Previous coverage of the hostage situation includes:
In the Aftermath of a Kidnapping | The South Korean missionary movement seeks to mature without losing its zeal.

Costly Commitment | In wake of abductions, Korean Christians take heavy criticism.

South Korean Politicians Blame U.S. for Taliban Hostages | Korean officials seek direct negotiations with kidnappers.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 7, 2008 10:04AM | Comments (0)

Jim Wallis is still preaching that God is not a Republican or a Democrat.

The Sojourners president appeared on the Jon Stewart show January 22, and his book will be announced at #10 on The New York Times best seller list later this week. He spoke with Christianity Today about the election and his take on the candidates and the evangelical agenda.

[Barack Obama is] almost a public theologian. He really understands the relationship between religion and public life, faith and politics. [Hillary Clinton] was a Methodist youth group kid who got urban experiences in Chicago and she has had her faith formed by that. McCain struggles more to understand the evangelical world. He’s trying, but it’s not as natural to him. Barack and Hillary were having faith forums in Iowa and Massachusetts and gospel tours in South Carolina. McCain is also trying now to reach out to evangelicals.

Can you evaluate how the candidates will appeal to evangelicals on specific issues?

Probably Barack and Hillary making poverty more an issue than McCain appeals to evangelicals. McCain and Barack and Hillary care about the environment and climate change and McCain has bucked his own party on that own question. That’s something people notice and pay attention to. The way that Barack and Hillary are critical of the war in Iraq and U.S. foreign policy does appeal to a new generation of evangelicals. I think people are critical of the conviction John McCain’s view of the war in Iraq. I admire the way that he again stood up against his own party and his own president by taking a stance against torture.

George Bush took the majority of evangelicals' votes in 2008. How will the votes play out in this election?

You have to remember that George Bush has turned evangelicals away from the Republican Party. His presidency has been such a disaster, such a failure, it’s embarrassed a lot of Christians. Evangelicals now are going to listen to someone who ... is responsive to the issues that they most care about. That will include 30,000 children who died today because of completely and unnecessary poverty, and utterly preventable disease. A new generation really believes that Jesus probably cares about those children than gay marriage amendments in Ohio. Sometimes I almost have an image of some old men standing in the river and the water is flowing past them and their hands are up in the air and they’re saying ‘Stop, stop, there are only two moral values issues,’ and the water is rushing by them, a new generation is rushing right by them.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 6, 2008 4:16PM | Comments (22)

Lent 2008 starts incredibly early this year. If you don't wish to give up chocolate this Lent, consider a Carbon Fast. Two top clerics in the Church of England are endorsing this concept.

The globally known group, Tear Fund, notes on its website:

Bishops of London and Liverpool join to launch the Carbon Fast. Two of the Church of England’s most senior Bishops are urging people to cut their carbon rather than give up chocolate this Lent. Bishop of Liverpool and Vice President of Tearfund, James Jones and Bishop of London, Dr Richard Chartres, are joining with development agency Tearfund in calling for a cut in personal carbon use for each of the 40 days of Lent.

At the same time a Tearfund survey reveals that three out of five adults in the UK are willing to take an energy saving action this Lent. Tearfund and the Bishops have launched the fast because of the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions, and to protect poor communities around the world who are already suffering from the ravages of climate change.

Bishop of Liverpool and Vice President of Tearfund, James Jones said, `Traditionally people have given up things for Lent. This year we are inviting people to join us in a Carbon Fast. `It is the poor who are already suffering the effects of climate change. To carry on regardless of their plight is to fly in the face of Christian teaching.

`The tragedy is that those with the power to do something about it are least affected, whilst those who are most affected are powerless to bring about change. `There’s a moral imperative on those of us who emit more than our fair share of carbon to rein in our consumption.'

The Carbon Fast is a 40 day journey through Lent, towards a lighter carbon footprint, with a simple energy saving action per day. Actions include:

* snubbing plastic bags
* giving the dishwasher a day off
* insulating the hot water tank
* checking the house for drafts with a ribbon and buying draught excluders

Participants are asked to begin the Carbon Fast by removing one light bulb from a prominent place in the home and live without it for 40 days - as a constant visual reminder during Lent of the need to cut energy.

With a lighter carbon footprint, the Western church would save money while saving the world in the name of Christ.

Posted by Tim Morgan at February 6, 2008 1:54PM | Comments (15)

After a night of tornadoes and power outages, Union University's website is back up and running. But to keep tabs on the post-tornado emergency news, they have created a new website UUEmergency. You can view a slideshow there, or use the "comments" feature on one of the posts to leave messages for students.

Posted by David Neff at February 6, 2008 11:22AM | Comments (3)

Both the Jackson Sun and Baptist Press have updated their stories and posted photos of the wreckage and rescue operations at Union University following last night's tornado damage.

A tornado struck the Tennessee campus last evening about seven o'clock, trapping 12 students (according to Baptist Press, or 13 according to the Jackson Sun) in dorms that collapsed. All have now been freed from the debris.

Union's website is still down this morning, and classes have been cancelled until February 13 to allow the administration to assess damage and lay plans for the future.

Posted by David Neff at February 6, 2008 5:43AM | Comments (3)

Religious voters split between Democratic candidates, says John Green of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

Sen. Obama has clearly done very well among black Protestants, and that’s changed the equation. If you go back to the polls last year that showed Sen. Clinton way ahead, one of the reason was she was winning the black vote by a large margin and that doesn’t seem to be happening. White Catholics are really important to the extent that Clinton can hang on to them. One of the tasks for the Obama campaign is to find a way to reach into Catholic community. There’s quite a struggle over white Protestants. It appears that Clinton has an edge there as well, so a challenge for Sen. Obama. I see a pretty fierce struggle going forward and religious groups will be part of the mix.

Republican Mike Huckabee continues to surprise the experts.

It’s really interesting how well Governor Huckabee has done across the South. He did it very largely with the support of evangelicals where did really quite well. A lot of people thought McCain would win those states because Huckabee and Romney would kind of divide up the evangelical vote. It kind of worked the other way and then Huckabee came out winning because McCain and Romney competed. I don’t see a lot of evidence of the broadening of [Huckabee's] base of support. He just did better among evangelicals in the South, and of course evangelicals are numerous among the South. The challenge of Governor Huckabee to expand his appeal is still very much with him.

Mitt Romney has been the more conservative candidate for the Republican party, but he did not do as well among evangelicals.

The evangelical community does seem to be divided. The fact that Governor Huckabee and McCain have done well among evangelicals suggests the evangelical community is open to a broader agenda than they have been in the past. What’s most noticeable about them is they have more moderate economic policies. One conclusion that one could draw is a lot evangelicals are ready to move beyond President Bush. They’re ready to move on to a more moderate economic policy and a different foreign policy.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 6, 2008 1:48AM | Comments (0)

Exit polls show a split on abortion between Republican candidates Mike Huckabee and John McCain. Wheaton College political science professor Amy Black says there seems to be a distinction between perception and reality.

Pro-life Republicans are voting for Huckabee and pro-choice Republicans are voting for McCain. On one hand, that may make sense, but when you realize that McCain has a very consistent pro-life voting record and has been supported in all his elections by the National Right to Life Committee, it begins to look a little bit stranger. But when you talk to people, the perception is that Huckabee is much stronger on the issue.

And as a scholar, she, too, is frustrated that Democratic exit polls failed to ask the same evangelical self-identification questions as the Republican exit polls.

One of the problems is, we frankly don’t know what’s going on. We do know what’s going on with evangelical Republicans; we don’t know what’s going on with evangelical Democrats. One of the disappointing things is that we can’t gauge it on both sides, even though we know that there would be important evangelical voters on both sides.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 6, 2008 1:19AM | Comments (1)

Political science professor Allen Hertzke says it is best not to make predictions. Huckabee's surprising wins make the Republican waters murkier, says the director of religious studies at the University of Oklahoma.

I think the big story religiously is Huckabee’s surge. I think it was unexpected by most of the experts and pundits. He had a shoestring budget, he barely was funded, yet he won five states basically on a tremendous turnout of evangelical Christians. It’s really muddied up the Republican race pretty significantly. What looked like a might be a triumphant McCain victory is turning out to be something a little bit more drawn out I think.

Hertzke says the attitude among voters is quite different for the two parties.

It’s a very unsettled race. A lot of Republicans are not really satisfied with the field of candidates. They’re struggling to make their decisions. The other side is a little different because I think here’s a lot of energy and excitement in the Democratic Party and the supporters of Hillary and Obama are both enthusiastic about their candidates. I sense on the Republican side, I sense more of a groping for ‘who am I going to vote for?’

The political scientist believes that while Obama may have some interest from evangelicals, Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain both have work to do.

I think Barack Obama already has a message of hope, a religiously-based message, a subtle one, but I think it’s there. I think his message about unity, ending the divisiveness of politics is very appealing, especially to young evangelicals. Hillary Clinton has to work harder, clearly, to cut into the evangelical vote in a general election. [McCain has] been trying to reach out to the conservative wing of the party, not only the religiously conservative but the economically conservative of the wing. I think it’s still dicey for him.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 6, 2008 12:38AM | Comments (0)

So we don't know for whom evangelicals / born again Christians are voting on the Democratic side. At least we know whether gay Californians were swayed by the Kennedy endorsements.

Priorities. And established media narratives.

Posted by Ted Olsen at February 6, 2008 12:21AM | Comments (0)

For all of tonight's posts (and the rest of February's), go here. We've posted more items tonight than fit on our main liveblog page.

Posted by Ted Olsen at February 5, 2008 11:34PM | Comments (0)

Mike Cromartie, vice president at the Ethics and Public Policy Center said James Dobson's decision to not vote for Sen. John McCain was premature:

Politics is about making choices between relative goods and lesser evils and not about having perfect choices. It’s a wasted vote on Dr. Dobson’s part. It’s irresponsible on his part to give that kind of leadership. He should sit down with McCain and see if he can be persuasive. What he should be saying is, "I’ll wait to see what the candidates have to offer." It’s premature to emphatically say, "I’ll never vote for anybody."

Late Tuesday night, results looked bright for McCain:

It looks like McCain is going to be a candidate. The things to ask are how many meetings is it going to take and what kind of actions are going to be needed for social conservatives to rally behind McCain against an either Clinton or Obama ticket. This is unusual for the Republican Party to have a candidate that’s so not particularly admired by social conservatives. The story really is going to be how McCain is going to win the base.

Cromartie compared McCain with the first President Bush:

George H.W. Bush did not have all that great of a relationship with social conservatives. The reason that he picked Dan Quayle was Dan Quayle was seen as someone they can trust. It didn’t help the ticket that much but it did help satisfy social conservatives. I guess if I was going to predict, it would be a McCain-Huckabee ticket just for that reason.

Cromartie told me what he thinks candidates will need to do to galvanize evangelical support.

If the evangelical agenda is broadening, as it broadens, it doesn’t mean it’s eliminating convictions it previously held. You can broaden the agenda to be concerned about poverty and AIDS in Africa and the state of the environment, but it doesn’t mean you cancel out your concerns about the life issues, about ethical issues, or the marriage issues. It takes more than scintillating rhetoric to convince voters to vote for you. It means certain promises about policies that you will pursue.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 5, 2008 11:31PM | Comments (14)

CT received a press release a few minutes ago from the Global Country of World Peace announcing that their leader, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi died Tuesday evening at his headquarters in the Netherlands. The New York Times and other outlets are also reporting the story tonight. The founder of the Transcendental Meditation movement, known as the Giggling Guru, was catapulted to world fame when the Beatles sought his spiritual advice at his ashram in 1968. Other celebrities followed, including Donovan, the Beach Boys, and Mia Farrow.

The Global Country of World Peace press release was headlined "Maharishi Welcomed into Heaven." That, or wherever John Lennon is right now.

That headline reminded me of another entrance into heaven--one created to welcome someone who didn't think world peace could be achieved by meditation or levitation, but who labored diligently to better the lives of the poor and to bring them to Jesus. If you haven't read "General William Booth Enters Heaven," click here to savor the robust American poet Vachel Lindsay's tribute to the founder of the Salvation Army. This is poetry to be read aloud, passionately, to the accompaniment of the bass drum, banjo, flute, and tambourine. And the music isn't "Imagine," but "Are You Washed in the Blood of the Lamb?"

Posted by David Neff at February 5, 2008 11:16PM | Comments (0)

Yesterday, the Huffington Post reported that evangelicals' influence heading into Super Tuesday would be greatly weakened. Without a compelling conservative candidate, and with younger evangelicals' political concerns expanding beyond core issues of the Religious Right, the Post predicted that the evangelical vote would be split. By and large, that prediction seems to be true.

The danger of being captive to either party has been noted by many evangelical leaders, including Florida megachurch pastor Joel Hunter. As he said to CT's Liveblog earlier this evening, "People just can’t be pinned down to their proper categories anymore. That’s probably the story that will come out of this election."

But if evangelicals can't be counted on to vote together, are they worth targeting at all? If conservative, white, male evangelicals vote just like other conservative white males, does it matter that they're evangelicals? If urban, progressive evangelicals vote just like other urban liberals, does their religious affiliation need to be considered?

Depending on how you look at it, the story of Election 2008 may be the maturing of the evangelical vote -- or the increasing irrelevance of it.

Posted by Madison Trammel at February 5, 2008 10:45PM | Comments (0)

My attempts to format this in a friendlier format have failed. Click the image for an even bigger version.

Posted by Ted Olsen at February 5, 2008 10:44PM | Comments (0)

Even with all of the talk of the evangelical agenda broadening, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty, believes that the majority of evangelicals will be particularly passionate about one issue next fall.

As long as there is a bright line distinction between the two parties on the life issues, it’s going to suck up all the oxygen in the room when it comes to voting. If evangelicals are forced to choose between a climate policy they like and a pro-life policy they like, they’re going to vote for unborn children. If the price of having the climate policy they like is to vote a candidate to vote for a woman to kill her own baby, it’s too high of a price.

I asked Land what it would take to get evangelical support.

They’ll have to talk about the issues that matter to evangelicals and make it clear that they’re going to be defenders of the unborn, make it clear that they’re going to nominate only strict constructionists, original intent jurists to the Supreme Court, make it clear they’re going to pro-family policies both economically and socially, and for a good portion of evangelicals that they’re support a strong national defense, and they’re going to make it a high priority to keep the country safe from foreign attack.

Even though clear candidates have not emerged from the race, Land is glad that one candidate is out for sure.

The most troublesome prospect that faced them is now gone because they refused to listen to the talking heads and the experts who told them six months ago that they would have to hold their nose and vote for Giuliani. That terrible, wrenching choice of having to vote for the lesser of two evils or to not vote for a pro-choice candidate is now off the table.

If McCain is the nominee, Land believes evangelicals will eventually rally behind him.

The vast majority are going to vote for McCain because he is pro-life and he is pro national defense and pro protection of America. Even if he’s not their first or second choice in the primaries, the vast majority of them will vote for them. In the last presidential election, 78 percent of evangelicals voted for Bush and 22 percent voted for Kerry. I don’t think it’s going to change much if it’s McCain versus Clinton.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 5, 2008 10:04PM | Comments (4)

One can surely debate the value of identity politics. But in some sense it's natural that a South filled with evangelicals voted for one of their own in Mike Huckabee. Still, some see more nefarious trends at work. John O'Sullivan over at National Review's Corner suggested that these evangelicals just couldn't bring themselves to vote for a Mormon. "My southern belle wife always warned that many evangelicals would vote for anyone but a Mormon," O'Sullivan wrote. "I was skeptical - and we don't yet have the exit poll breakdowns on that kind of question - but it looks as if something like that may be at work."

Will we have any data on this topic? I wonder how that question would have to be worded. In the meantime, is it really plausible to suggest that evangelical Republicans would go out of their way to vote against a candidate who's not even the frontrunner? Especially if they have policy and affinity reasons to vote for Huckabee?

Posted by Collin Hansen at February 5, 2008 9:37PM | Comments (0)

According to a Baptist Press e-mail bulletin just sent out to news organizations, Union University in Jackson, Tenn., "sustained heavy tornado damage Tuesday evening at approximately 7 pm when a line of heavy thunderstorms rushed through the area."

At 8:15 central, news and information director, Tim Ellsworth, reported that students were still trapped by debris in their dorms. At least four of those students have been rescued. Dorms in both the men's and women's areas have been destroyed.

"We currently have no serious injuries that we know of and rescue operations are still continuing," Ellsworth said. "Many buildings sustained heavy damage."

Electrical power is out at Union and their website is down. The school is "trying to provide parents with information," but with the power outage, that is a major challenge.

The Jackson Sun details further damage to the campus and to the surrounding area. Nashville's WKRN appears to have posted a video report, but the site is too busy right now for the video to load.

If you have friends or family at Union, you'll want to keep checking the Baptist Press and Jackson Sun websites for updates.

Posted by David Neff at February 5, 2008 9:22PM | Comments (6)

Mark Silk observes:

Huckabee doesn't do as well among Oklahoma evangelicals as he's done in other big evangelical states--just 36 percent compared to 31 percent for McCain and 26 percent for Romney. Oklahoma's just across the border from Arkansas. Are Okies too familiar with Huck?

The numbers I'm looking at are 39/29/25, so slightly better news for Huckabee. But his point stands. In states where 60% or more of Republicans call themselves evangelical, Huckabee has been in the 40s at least.

Posted by Ted Olsen at February 5, 2008 9:13PM | Comments (0)

As Huckabee said, the pundits were calling the Republican contest a two-man race before Super Tuesday. "Well, you know what, it is," he said, "and we're in it."

What did his speech stress? A fair shot at the American dream for middle-class families. Families allowed to raise children the way they wish. Border security. Sanctity of human life. In other words, his usual combination of social conservatism and economic populism.

So much for Romney. He has been criticizing McCain for his weakness on issue social conservatives care about. Those criticisms may have hit home, but they've helped Huckabee rather than him.

(Collin had a bit more on Huckabee's speech.)

Posted by Madison Trammel at February 5, 2008 9:07PM | Comments (0)

James Dobson said earlier that he may abstain from the election if the candidates fail to live up to his standards.

In 2006, Dobson and other Christian leaders said it would be a sin to not vote, as long as the candidates provide the right resume.

"If you can find a politician who understands the institution of the family, who wants to protect children from immorality, who understands that we are at war with those who want to destroy us and who understand that liberal judges are undermining us and need to be reined in," he said "and if you can find a politician who lives by a strong moral code and believes in Jesus Christ ... if you can find such a person, it would be a sin not to vote for him."

More commentary on Dobson's earlier statement comes from CBN reporter and former Focus on the Family radio reporter David Brody who asks "Why come out with this statement now?"

The skeptic in me wonders if this is a way of helping Romney without endorsing him. Let's be real. For Evangelical Dobson to endorse a Mormon would be a tough pill to swallow for many of his loyal listeners so maybe this is code for "Vote for Romney."

I guess James Dobson won't be getting any calls from a possible McCain administration if that ever happens. Not that James Dobson really cares about that. I'm sure millions of Evangelicals feel the same way that Dr. Dobson feels, but let's be clear: not all Evangelicals will jump ship on McCain. He does appeal to many on the national security issue and that trumps many of the other blemishes.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 5, 2008 8:58PM | Comments (1)

If any exit poll anywhere asked Democrats if they identify themselves as evangelical/born-again, I'm not seeing it. I'm sure Howard Dean, Leah Daughtry, Jim Wallis, Katie Barge, and others aren't happy. But journalists (who call the shots on what questions get asked) shouldn't be pleased, either. There's a lot of talk tonight about how evangelicals are shaping the Republican ticket. There ought to have been some discussion about how they're shaping the Democratic ticket, too. After all, a third of evangelicals vote Democratic.

Posted by Ted Olsen at February 5, 2008 8:40PM | Comments (2)

Former Southern Baptist pastor Mike Huckabee took the stage first this evening declaring Republican rival Mitt Romney dead.

He alluded to the David-Goliath story and took one shot (seemingly) at Vietnam veteran John McCain: "one small, smooth stone is even more effective that a whole lot of armor."

Then he used the words of Jesus to dig on the mega-rich Romney: "the widow's mite has more effectiveness than all the gold in the world."

Posted by Collin Hansen at February 5, 2008 8:33PM | Comments (2)

Northland pastor Joel Hunter believes that early results from the primaries show a redefinition of the evangelical movement. He spoke with Christianity Today from his home in Florida.

I think evangelicals care very much that while government is not the answer, it’s not the enemy anymore, and that we find a way to protect the vulnerable outside the womb as well as inside the womb. The problems are so big that they can’t be addressed by one party or one ideology, or just by part of the electorate. You really need to galvanize people that have different opinions and offer solutions that people can buy into at least partially. That’s the kind of candidate people are looking for.

I asked him how evangelicals would view John McCain as a candidate if he were to win the Republican primary.

He knows very well what audiences he needs to go to and what issues he needs to speak to, but it’s not going to be like George Bush in 2004. He’s not going to talk about a conversion experience. He can do a lot without talking explicitly about Christ per se to signal that he is open to cooperating with various faith communities. What we can look for from John McCain are some of the more compassionate stances on some of the issues towards those who are disadvantaged.

And finally,

People just can’t be pinned down to their proper categories anymore. That’s probably the story that will come out of this election.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 5, 2008 8:18PM | Comments (0)

Clinton's campaign is calling her Massachusetts win "one of the biggest surprises of the night." It is that, especially since she lost the endorsement of the state's most famous political family. The Kennedys are probably the state's most famous Catholic family, too, and she handily won Roman Catholic voters in that state, while Obama took the Protestant and "no religion" vote.

I'm a little surprised that the "no religion" vote (19%) among Massachusetts Democrats is bigger than the Protestant vote (15%).

Posted by Ted Olsen at February 5, 2008 8:10PM | Comments (0)

Polls in more than half of the 24 states holding primaries or caucuses today are still open, but Barack Obama has already surprised the Clinton campaign with a dominant win in Georgia (that's based on returns from about 10 percent of the precincts.)

It's almost inconceivable that Hillary Clinton could struggle in her home state of New York, but her campaign suggested today that they're no longer certain about a big win in California.

"We're confident we're going to win a diverse mix of states today, but the results are going to be close and inconclusive due to the proportional allocation of delegates under the Democratic Party rules," said Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications advisor. "We do expect to maintain the overall lead in delegates tomorrow when we wake up that we do today.''

Clinton's strategists said they could see the fight going through March and possibly onto the convention floor in Denver in August -- great sport for political junkies but a test of nerves for the candidates. And even if Obama gets more delegates today, Clinton's advisors said her lead among "super delegates'' -- party leaders and elected officials who are free to vote as they choose -- would still give her the overall lead. But that would just add to the perception that she's the mainstream choice, and fuel Obama's contention that he's the candidate of change.

So how did Clinton lose her dominant position in California, a state she once led by 16 poll points?

Wolfson: "Sen Obama has put considerable resources into the state. He's had large rallies, he's had great surrogates coming out to urge his supporters to vote.... Much to their credit the state is close. I don't think we're going to know who has won California until very late into the night. That's just the way politics is. The election wasn't 30 days ago. It's today. And as of today it's very close.''

How much of this has to do with the fact that Obama has been winning the war of religious rhetoric is unclear. Christian Democrats split their votes in Georgia between the two. By tomorrow we should have a better understanding.

Posted by Brad Greenberg at February 5, 2008 7:59PM | Comments (0)

MSNBC just ran down the evangelical vote in the Republican contest today. A third of Republican voters surveyed today said they were evangelical. Two-thirds said no.

Of these, 33 percent voted for Huckabee, 31 percent for Romney, 30 percent for McCain, and 4 percent for Ron Paul.

When asked why they voted for their candidate, 53 percent said it was because their candidate "shares my values," 21 percent cited experience, 18 percent said the candidate "says what he believes," and 8 percent said "he has the vest chance to win in November." (The breakdown here wasn't all that different from above. For example, of evangelicals who said they voted for their candidate because he "shares my values," 33 percent were Huckabee voters.)

Here's what the evangelical breakdown looks like so far. (Click for a larger version.)

Posted by Ted Olsen at February 5, 2008 7:47PM | Comments (1)

The most recent Barna survey reveals some crucial insights for understanding the born-again/evangelical electorate. Among born-again Christians, a large swath of the American population, Barna found that 40 percent would support the Democratic candidate in November, with only 29 percent backing the Republican. Another 28 percent are undecided. Clearly these numbers indicate a dramatic departure from the 2000 and 2004 victories for President Bush. It appears many of these evangelicals vote candidate-first, not the party platform, and the President has left a bad taste in their mouth regarding fellow Republicans.

Barna defines evangelicals as a subset of born-again Christians. They hold more strictly to historic evangelical doctrines. They may also hew more closely to platform issues. Evangelical support for the Republican candidate has dropped off (now 45 percent), but they have not yet swung to the Democrat (11 percent).

These trends will be fascinating to watch. Born-again Christians may flock to a candidate such as Obama who speaks openly and eloquently about his faith. And evangelicals may shrink from a candidate such as McCain who isn't so strong on conservative social issues. Keep an eye on these trends, even as the primary tonight sorts things out.

Posted by Collin Hansen at February 5, 2008 7:45PM | Comments (1)

I think most political analysts would predict that McCain will win Arizona but it's surprising that the race is too close to call. Romney easily won his home state of Massachusetts. Why is Arizona so close? I imagine some folks might not like his immigration views, but is Arizona's significant Mormon population also in play?

Mollie Z. Hemingway usually blogs at GetReligion and joins us tonight as a special Super Tuesday guest.

Posted by Ted Olsen at February 5, 2008 7:27PM | Comments (0)

Even in Georgia, the pollsters aren't asking Democrats if they're evangelical or born again (64% of Republican voters today said yes). But that doesn't mean there aren't some interesting religion numbers in the exit polls.

What's up with 40 percent of Georgia's Democrats identifying themselves as "Other Christian," compared to only 28 percent Protestant? (The state's 8 percent Catholic is consistent with the state's population.)

The Republicans have fewer "Other Christians," which makes me think it's largely a synonym for "black Protestants." (Note: They also have fewer Jews, "something elses," and "nones." And no Muslims. I've dropped these from the table below, but you can access the original here.)

Here are the evangelical numbers from Georgia:

Update: Our guest blogger Mollie Hemingway jokes: "Maybe Georgia has a huge Eastern Orthodox population." Hey, it is Georgia!

Posted by Ted Olsen at February 5, 2008 6:50PM | Comments (0)

Jim Geraghty over at National Review posted a bunch of exit poll data from primary states. Exit poll data are notoriously unreliable, but one state's figures stand out:

The early wave in Utah: Romney 91 percent, McCain 5 percent, Huckabee 1 percent.

Richard T. Cullen at the Politico reported yesterday that Mormons "loathe" Huckabee. Sample quote:

"There is a feeling that Huckabee has exploited a lot of the anti-Mormon sentiment," said LaVarr Webb, a political consultant and publisher in Utah.

Posted by Ted Olsen at February 5, 2008 6:42PM | Comments (0)

Chairman of Focus on the Family James Dobson said once again Tuesday that he would not vote for Republican candidate John McCain.

Dobson's frustrations with McCain revolve around the following issues: voting against a marriage amendment, supporting embryonic stem-cell research, opposing tax cuts, "little regard" for freedom of speech, preserving filibusters in judicial hearings, and foul language.

Former Bush White House official David Kuo analyzes Dobson's statement on Beliefnet.

By putting himself out there so forcefully, Dr. Dobson risks playing the role of Dr. Kevorkian in ushering in the end of the old-line religious right.

Over at The Atlantic, Ross Douthat says that the statement pretty much assumes a McCain victory, and sounds more wistful than defiant.

Finally, attacking McCain for his tendency to use "foul and obscene language" seems like the purest form of social conservative self-parody. Particularly given the Bush Administration's record on that front.

The Baltimore Sun's James Oliphant:

Today may not be the apocalypse for many on the Religious Right, but to paraphrase Tommy Lee Jones in "No Country For Old Men," it will do until the apocalypse gets here.

Beliefnet's Rod Dreher:

You know, I have my own doubts about whether or not I'll vote this fall in the presidential contest, given how strongly I oppose McCain on the war and on immigration, issues that aren't deal-breakers for Dobson. So I can't really fault Dobson that much, though there is a certain nanny-nanny-boo-boo quality to this statement. ... Speaking as an unapologetic theocon, we need a better quality of theocon leadership in this country. I'm just sayin'.

TIME magazine's recent piece on Dobson examines whether he actually maintains the same kind of political clout he has had in the past.

As Focus on the Family weighs in on the presidential race, however, an examination of the group's records shows that its influence may not be all that it once was, and that its actual base may have become smaller.

Beliefnet's Dan Gilgoff believes his clout is still there.

Let God-o-Meter be the first to say that evangelicals are clearly less beholden to Christian Right leaders like Dobson than in the past. ... But come November, if Dobson's machine declines to swing into action for the Arizona senator, it could be the single biggest reason behind McCain's loss.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 5, 2008 6:15PM | Comments (8)

I'm camped out in front of the television with a case of Diet Pepsi and a Costco-sized bag of trail mix. With only 1% of the precincts reporting, Fox is calling Georgia for Obama, of course. While we wait for more results, you might read this announcement from the Barna Group:

If the election were held today, most born again voters would select the Democratic Party nominee for president, whoever that might be.

Barna's survey has two other angles that might be interesting for readers here.

More than one quarter of respondents contend that Mormons aren't Christian (57% of Evangelical Christians said the same).

Barna also evaluated voters who describe themselves as "deeply spiritual" and "concerned about the moral condition of the United States." That segment represents 35% of the electorate:

This group proved to be somewhat more conservative in its political views (42% are "mostly conservative") and slightly more inclined than the national population to be registered as Republican (35% Republican, 44% Democrat). However, these "values voters" are only slightly more inclined to select a Republican candidate (27%) than is true nationally (24%). In fact, the "values voters" are currently less inclined to select the Republican nominee than are born again (29%) or evangelical voters (45%).

It will be interesting to see how values voters voted today . . .

Posted by Ted Olsen at February 5, 2008 6:05PM | Comments (1)

Apparently the exit polls so far show something of a Mike Huckabee revival in the Republican primary. The former Arkansas governor and Southern Baptist preacher has already won West Virginia's caucus. Presumably he's won his home state. Alabama and Georgia are friendly terrain with large evangelical blocs. At the very least, Huckabee's strong Southern showing could delay the McCain coronation or make his case for the vice-presidential nomination. Would a Huckabee running mate make McCain more palatable to folks like James Dobson?

Posted by Collin Hansen at February 5, 2008 5:53PM | Comments (1)

Mitt Romney is attacking John McCain's campaign after Mike Huckabee's winner-take-all caucus win this afternoon.

Romney did well in the first round of balloting, with 41 percent of the vote. Huckabee had 33 percent, McCain had 16 percent, and Ron Paul had 10 percent. But reports say that McCain's campaign, seeking to torpedo a Romney win, asked the Arizona senator's supporters to back Huckabee. Romney's camp.

So West Virginia is probably the state where Huckabee has done his best among non-evangelical voters. But apparently there's no polling data of the caucus voters, so we won't know if that's the case.

(How evangelical is West Virginia? If you count members of evangelical denominations, not very. But rest assured that the country's largest religious block, "unclaimed," includes a ton of independent churches. Only 13 percent say they have "no religious affiliation." Some reports say about 44 percent of the West Virginia's population identifies as evangelical.)

Posted by Ted Olsen at February 5, 2008 5:43PM | Comments (1)

Will the exit pollsters ask Democrats about their faith? Is "the evangelical vote" shifting? Will Tuesday night's winners thank God for their victories? What will the country's leading religion-and-politics pundits think about the results? Join Christianity Today's editors and several special guests Tuesday night at the CT Liveblog for the stories you won't see on the networks.

Posted by Susan Wunderink at February 5, 2008 3:12PM | Comments (1)

Candidates want the Latino vote, and Samuel Rodriguez is just a phone call away.

Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference, has been a go-to guy for politicians looking for a Hispanic evangelical voice. He has also been the center of attention recently as journalists want to know more about evangelical voting patterns.

McClatchy Newspapers reported that Republican candidates Sen. John McCain and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee have sought Rodriguez's support, and an aide to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney put in a call.

Today, NPR aired an interview with the California pastor and Newsweek profiled Rodriguez in late December. The Chicago Tribune also recently profiled the California pastor, saying that Christian leaders call him the "Karl Rove of Latino evangelical strategy."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 5, 2008 2:39PM | Comments (0)

CleanFlicks, once popular with Christians and families for its video "sanitizing" service, is working overtime to distance itself from a sex scandal involving a Utah man who apparently claimed he once worked with the company.

On Friday, CleanFlicks filed a federal lawsuit again Daniel Dean Thompson, who was recently arrested for allegedly paying a 14-year-old girl for sex. According to a press release, CleanFlicks is seeking damages for "harming the firm by illegally claiming a business relationship with the firm and infringing its trade name and trademarks."

According to CleanFlicks, Thompson "was not a founder of CleanFlicks, LLC or CleanFlicks Media, Inc., nor was he ever a partner, officer, affiliate, dealer, franchisee, collaborator, consultant or representative of any CleanFlicks entity in any capacity."

Several reports of Thompson's Jan. 24 arrest - on two charges of forcible sexual abuse and two charges of forcible sexual activity with a 14-year-old - had referred to him as a "co-founder" of CleanFlicks. Other reports said Thompson had owned and/or operated one or more CleanFlicks dealerships - which offered edited DVDs to customers - in Utah.

But CleanFlicks says none of it is true. Its Friday press release says the business "has uncovered data it believes proves that Thompson has knowingly lied about his relationship with CleanFlicks and that such activity has caused great harm to the company," and thus the lawsuit, which seeks over $1 million in damages.

"We want everyone to see that we stand for the antithesis of everything with which we have been erroneously linked in recent reports," said Ray Lines, whom CleanFlicks says is the true founder of their company.

Christianity Today asked CleanFlicks publicist David Politis how several reputable news outlets - including The Salt Lake Tribune, the Provo Daily Herald, and a local CBS News affiliate - could have mistakenly associated Thompson with CleanFlicks.

Politis said that CleanFlicks used to run a number of brick-and-mortar dealerships in Utah, but when they decided to become exclusively an online DVD rental business in 2002, they sold the stores to individuals. Thompson's father apparently bought three of the stores, and later hired his son, Daniel, to manage one of them. CleanFlicks later required all of the brick-and-mortar stores to cease using the CleanFlicks name.

Meanwhile, CleanFlicks had also learned that Daniel Thompson had served time in the Utah County Jail for various indictments on securities fraud, money laundering, and theft. (Documents from the Fourth District Court in Provo confirm this.) At that time, CleanFlicks told Thompson's father that they would no longer do business with his son.

CleanFlicks has made more details about the situation available at FreeCleanFlicks.com.

CleanFlicks was founded in 2000 by Ray and Sharon Lines as a business which edits movies to remove objectionable content. The company - and other "video sanitizing" businesses like it - gained popularity with Christians and families over the next few years. But in 2006, such businesses received a lethal blow when a federal judge ruled that sanitizing movies violates copyright laws. Rather than fight the case, CleanFlicks abided by the decision and quit the sanitizing business.

CleanFlicks is still in operation today, but now as an online-only video rental company that claims to be "the world's only DVD rental store exclusively offering family friendly movies."

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 2, 2008 12:34AM | Comments (2)

We reported last November on the raids on Grace Church, a network of Korean Presbyterian church-plants, in Kazakhstan. The country’s secret police (formerly KGB, now KNB) are back at it, Forum 18 reports. Last weekend they raided the Grace Church in Almaty, the largest city in Kazakhstan.

Leaks through the media allege that church members are engaged in spying, appropriating church members' property, failing to file financial information, inciting inter-religious enmity and holding illegal drugs, even though no-one has ever been brought before a criminal court.

Vyacheslav Kalyuzhny, the Deputy Human Rights Ombudsperson, says the Church has not complained to his office. "People are not persecuted on religious grounds in Kazakhstan," he claimed.

The claim, while absurd, has worked in the recent past. In November, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) elected Kazakhstan to be the chair, beginning in 2010:

Minister Tazhin also emphasized that religious tolerance is highly valued in Kazakhstan, and that the country "enthusiastically supports the establishment of the three CiO personal representatives on religious tolerance: for Anti-Semitism, Muslims, and for Christians and Other Religions."

In 2009, Kazakhstan will host the third Congress on World and Traditional Religions in Astana.

Kazakhstanis are wonderfully welcoming and friendly people (I lived there for a couple years), and Central Asia has a long tradition of tolerance going back to the Silk Road. But the government has pretty much scrapped that tradition. It seems far more worried about Borat than the possibility of censure from the international community over degenerating religious rights.

Posted by Susan Wunderink at February 1, 2008 11:47AM | Comments (1)

He might be a favorite of many evangelicals, but former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has said some things that scare other Americans. The problem is not that he's talking freely about his faith -- that's something all the candidates now find necessary -- but that he seems to genuinely believe what he says. Here's how that is playing out with one important community of voters.

Zero percent -- that's a bagel -- of New York Jews favored Huckabee over the other Republican front-runners in a mid-January poll by Siena College. And a completely unscientific search here in Los Angeles didn't yield better results. (Huckabee's press office did not respond to a request for info on any Jewish volunteers in California; Greenfield also was unaware of any supporters.)

Jacques Berlinerblau, the author of "Thumpin' It," explained that phenomenon to me this way:

"Jews have been conditioned to play it close to the vest and keep their religious sentiments to themselves," said Berlinerblau, an associate professor of Jewish civilization at Georgetown University. "It is so viscerally in our cultural DNA, I don't think we are very comfortable with public faith-and-values talk. Especially when it is coming from a Christian spokesperson."

I know what you are thinking: Jews aren't typically considered swing voters. True, but if the Republican nominee is John McCain, we will most certainly see more Jews vote Republican than if the nominee is Huckabee or Mitt Romney or (he's still in it) Ron Paul. The same can be said for those who consider themselves an amalgam of liberal and conservative political opinions.

This article also appears at The God Blog.

Posted by Brad Greenberg at February 1, 2008 10:08AM | Comments (23)