Earlier this week, Purpose Driven Connection, the partnership between the Readers Digest Association and Saddleback church's Rick Warren, announced a transition to digital online content only, dropping the high-cost print edition.

The final print edition of PDC is due to roll out across the 2009 holiday season. No matter how you look at it, this decision is a hard pill to swallow for Saddleback and RDA.

When RDA and Saddleback first announced their partnership, hopes were (in retrospect) running way ahead of the economic realities of 2009. Since then, RDA has downsized and it is currently wading through bankruptcy proceedings.

The secular press has been rather doubtful from the get-go about a strategic relationship between old media (RDA) and faith-based media (such as Purpose Driven and other mega-church content providers).

Here are comments from a writer for Folio magazine, a trade publication that tracks magazine publishing:

I asked the spokesperson directly if RDA considers the Purpose Driven Connection venture a failure. Of course he said it wasn’t a failure. From an operational point of view, he said that shutting down an otherwise interesting product that doesn’t meet financial criteria “is every bit as important as green-lighting others to go forward.” He also said RDA gleaned “proof of concept” insights into serving a community like Warren’s that’s bound by faith or philosophy.

“We believe that we could take this forward with a community that had a somewhat different characteristic—larger, more open to purchasing memberships, more universal, global, etc.,” the spokesperson said. More open to purchasing memberships. That might be key. This shouldn’t suggest, though, that Saddleback hasn’t had any success from the venture. The church said subscribers to the Daily Hope devotions newsletter have grown to 400,000 since Purpose Driven Connection launched early this year.

If not for monetary reasons, I think the loss for RDA is substantial, despite the positive lessons it says it learned from giving it a shot. It has to be tough, especially for a company that’s now steering itself out of bankruptcy, to watch a product it called one of its most important ventures ever fail after only four issues.

I haven't personally talked with Rick himself about PDC. But he strikes all positive notes in his press release, saying:

"Our biggest discovery was learning that people prefer reading our content online rather than in print, because it is more convenient and accessible," said Warren. "Cell phones now allow us to take content everywhere. And, from our viewpoint, an online magazine allows us to minister to people internationally; provide more content and features than we could fit in a print magazine; create interaction and two-way dialogue; and offer it for free.
"So when we heard the feedback and noticed subscriptions to the print magazine lagging behind Internet usage, in spite of strong retail newsstand sales, we jumped at the chance to go all digital," Warren concluded. "Thankfully, Reader's Digest was willing to help us make the transition."

Some dreams die hard. Others are kept alive by human imagination (and capital).

Just yesterday, I received in the mail news that the Christian Science Monitor, which has transitioned to all-online, was about to launch -- guess what? A new, in-print, weekly news magazine.

It seems to me that the reality check for RDA and Purpose Driven is that they serve different masters. One is profit-driven. The other is change-driven. The partnership wasn't working institutionally.

In the current economic climate, I think hybrids are more important than partnerships. (Think Ford Fusion and Toyota Prius.) This means that a hybrid of old media and new media calls for innovative use of resources, but often does not require organizational partnerships in the same way they were done years ago.

Isn't that what the church might learn from Apple and Google?

Posted by Tim Morgan at November 6, 2009 | Comments (2)

The following podcasts are now available:

What is the Gospel?
Darrell Bock moderates a Christian Book Expo panel with Richard Stearns, Mark D. Roberts, Tullian Tchividjian, and Justin Taylor.

The Emerging Church
Mark Galli moderates a Christian Book Expo panel with Scot McKnight, Tony Jones, Kevin DeYoung, and Alex and Brett Harris.

They are each about an hour and a half. More podcast panel discussions, which are already available on this Liveblog in video format, will be available tomorrow.

UPDATE: The other three panel discussion podcasts will, God willing, be made available next week. Sorry for the delay.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at April 8, 2009 | Comments (6)

James Dobson resigned as chairman of Focus on the Family but will continue to play a role at the Colorado Springs-based organization he founded, The Associated Press reports. Dobson's wife, Shirley, also resigned from the Focus board.

Dobson, 72, already turned the ship over six years ago to Jim Daly, the organization's president and chief executive officer. He will continue to host Focus on the Family's radio program, write a monthly newsletter and speak out on moral issues, Daly told Eric Gorski of the AP.

"One of the common errors of founder-presidents is to hold to the reins of leadership too long, thereby preventing the next generation from being prepared for executive authority," Dobson said in a statement. "... Though letting go is difficult after three decades of intensive labor, it is the wise thing to do."

On political matters, Dobson "will continue to speak out as he always has - a private citizen and not a representative of the organization he founded," said Gary Schneeberger, a Focus on the Family spokesman. He said the nonprofit ministry and Focus on the Family Action - an affiliate set up under a different section of the tax code that permits more political activity - will continue to be active on public policy.

Dobson has a devoted following. His radio broadcast reaches an estimated 1.5 million U.S. listeners daily. Yet critics say his influence is waning, pointing to evangelicals pushing to broaden the movement's agenda beyond abortion, gay marriage and other issues Dobson views as most vital.

"In the short term, in the near term, Dr. Dobson will stay committed to the issues close to his heart," Daly said in an interview. "He'll continue to speak out on those topics."

Update: I asked our Twitter followers what they thought Dobson's resignation and whether they listened to him or read his books. Here a few responses:

tnhuckaby@CTmagazine I don't have time. I don't always agree with him, but he has been very faithful over the years. To be respected for that.

sarahflashing@CTmagazine not sure if Focus can have the influence without him...that's the danger of building an organization around a person.

detellis@CTmagazine Dobson will remain a legand in Christian broadcasting and defending Christian family values. I believe in Jim Daly's leadership.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at February 27, 2009 | Comments (45)

Richard Cizik resigned Wednesday night as vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals.

Christianity Today has posted a news story on its main site and an interview with Leith Anderson, president of the NAE.

Cizik's resignation comes shortly after a December 2 interview with Terry Gross on National Public Radio's Fresh Air. Most of the interview focused on the environment, but Cizik made brief remarks about same-sex civil unions, gay marriage, and his early support of President-elect Barack Obama. Here is a portion of the interview with Terry Gross:

You say you really identify with the concerns and priorities of younger evangelical voters, and one of those priorities is more of an acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage. A couple of years ago when you were on our show, I asked you if you were changing your mind on that, and two years ago you said you were still opposed to gay marriage. But now as you identify more and more with younger voters and their priorities; have you changed on gay marriage?

I'm shifting I have to admit. In other words I would willingly say I believe in civil unions. I don't officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition, I don't think. We have this tension going on in our movement between what is church-building and what is nation-building. And I lean in this spectrum at times - maybe we should concentrate on building values in our own movement. We have become so absorbed in the question of gay rights and the rest that we fail to understand the challenges and threats to marriage itself - heterosexual marriage. Maybe we need to re-evaluate this and look at it a little differently. I'm always looking for ways to reframe issues, give the biblical point of view a different slant, if you will, and look it, we have to. The whole world, literally, the planet is changing around us, and if you don't change the way you think and adapt, especially to things like climate change, scientists like Bob Dopple he says well if you don't adapt and change your thinking you may ultimately be a loser, because climate change in his mind - he's a systems analyst - has the capacity to determine the winners and the losers, and your life will never be the same, growing up during I say the great warming. Our grandparents grew up during the great depression, our parents, well they lived in the aftermath of that and became maybe the greediest generation, and our generation, this younger one, needs to be the greenest.

Stephen Waldman of Beliefnet raised this question that I want to put to you. Barack Obama supports the right to have an abortion, but he also advocates reducing the number of abortions when possible. Will you support him in abortion reduction or do you see that as a diversion from the work of banning or restricting abortion?

I will support him. I will support Barack Obama in finding ways to reduce the number of abortions, absolutely.

Now is that controversial within the evangelical movement?

For some, yes. I've already been called one of the devil's minions for taking this position because it seems compromising, but that's again that winner take all mentality that you have to have it all. In politics I have learned over many years less is more. I think finding those who are in trouble, in crisis, helping them through this and if need be even supplying what government presently doesn't do, namely contraception, is an answer to reducing unintended pregnancies.

Wait, wait. I think I heard you say government supplying contraception. That's got to be controversial.

Among some it would be, but I don't think so. We are not, as I have said previously, we are not Catholics who oppose contraception per se. And let's face it, what do you want? Do you want an unintended pregnancy that results in abortion or do you want to meet a woman's needs in crisis, who frankly, would by better contraception avoid that choice, avoid that abortion that we all recognize is morally repugnant - at least it is to me.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at December 11, 2008 | Comments (5)

The Board of Emergent Village announced a new direction for the network last Thursday, which includes the decision "to streamline, decentralize, and reduce expenses by discontinuing the role of National Coordinator."

This move comes in response to feedback from more than 2,000 friends of Emergent given in a survey sent out this past summer. Thursday's announcement reports that "nearly everyone [survey respondents] agreed that emergent is a grass-roots relational network" and that friends of Emergent are wary of "institutionalization" -- becoming "another large nonprofit religious organization building a big budget and staff."

Jones will continue in his role of National Coordinator on a part-time basis through the end of the year and will, according the announcement, "stay actively involved as a passionate participant in this conversation and friendship."

More to come.

Posted by Derek Keefe at November 3, 2008 | Comments (8)

On the final morning of the Muslim-Christian conversation held last week at Yale, Christian participants eagerly anticipated what Christian speakers would have to say. Several Christian speakers had grounded their messages in explicitly Christian teachings, such as the doctrine of the Trinity. But there was a general sense that Muslim speakers had more pointedly articulated their beliefs during the nearly three days of meetings. (See earlier reports here and here.)

Early in the conference, reports circulated that when Regent College theologian John Stackhouse had used the parable of the Good Samaritan to present a clearly Christian viewpoint during the closed-door pre-conference workshop, some Muslim leaders had complained that Stackhouse was trying to evangelize them. Perhaps other Christian speakers were instinctively treading more softly.

During coffee breaks, several Christian participants told me they felt the Muslim speakers had been more carefully chosen to represent Islamic views. A Wednesday morning session which featured two famous preachers intensified this feeling.

The Muslim preacher was Yemenite Al-Habib Ali Al-Jifri, known popularly as Habib Ali. He ranks as one of the ten most popular preachers in the Muslim world (not just the Arab world). He exuded youth and charisma as he winningly invited Christians and Muslims to make religion once again a solution to the world's problems rather than a part of its problems. Al-Jifri called us to form an alliance of virtuous persons.

Winsome though he was, Al-Jifri did not hesitate to stress the absolute transcendence of God and the absolute unity of God, in contrast to the way paradoxical way that Christians affirm these things. (For Christians God is both transcendent and immanent; God is both one and three.)

The Christian preacher was the 81-year-old Dr. Robert Schuller. He is without doubt one of Christianity's most widely heard preachers, and he has possessed popularity and influence for a very long time. Schuller matched Al-Jifri in winsomeness and charisma. There seems to be no limit to Schuller's generosity of spirit. But his presentation fell short of making any distinctions between Islam and Christianity. Instead, he spoke of the need for Christians to "reframe the gospel." He stressed his "profound respect for people who are sincere in their faith" and talked about how at age 81 he knows he doesn't know all the answers and, indeed, wants to know "which of his answers are wrong."

Epistemic humility can be a virtue in some contexts, but when devout moderate Muslims are trying to get to know their Christian counterparts, explicitly Christian affirmations are called for. Instead, Dr. Schuller repeated his long-standing message about the importance of self-esteem.

By Thursday morning, Christian conferees were placing their trust in two symbolic evangelical figures to represent them well: Geoff Tunnicliffe, International Director and CEO of the World Evangelical Alliance, and Leith Anderson, pastor of Wooddale Church in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, and president of the National Association of Evangelicals.

In his brief panel presentation,Tunnicliffe talked about the importance of rebuilding the metaphorical bridges that recent social and political storms have destroyed. In that context, he asked Muslims to stop stereotyping Christians--especially evangelicals.

During this conference we have heard how Muslims feel they have been stereotyped and stigmatized in the media. As evangelical Christians we feel the same stereotyping.

I ... [serve] a global family of over 420 million evangelical Christians. We are a diverse community of Christians, yet we are often portrayed through the media as being tied to one political agenda, one view of eschatology, and intolerant of all others. That is simply not the case. While we have a shared commitment to some core biblical truths, we also have a diversity of views on many issues. The ... vast majority of evangelical Christians live in the Global South and ... that will become even more pronounced in the years to come.

Just as we promise to seek to move beyond the stereotyping of Muslims found in the media, can I ask you, my Muslim friends, to get to know us beyond what is reported in the newspapers and television programs?

If we are ... to build this new bridge, this must be a part of the architecture.

Tunnicliffe also touched on issues of religious freedom, human rights, and "mutual respect for the sharing of our faith."

Leith Anderson gave a plenary address, and thus had a bit more time than Tunifcliffe to develop his evangelical Christian response to the conference. Nevertheless, with so much that he and others felt had been unsaid or underemphasized, Anderson had to pack his message tightly.

Anderson talked about evangelicals as good news people who share classic Christian beliefs, such as the doctrine of the Trinity. In addition, we are characterized by a deep commitment to the authority of the Bible. We stress that we are all sinners in need of reconciliation with God and with each other. Most of all, he said, evangelical Christians are identified as those who experience a personal relationship with God through repentance and turning to God in faith. We are followers of Jesus by personal choice. We are not about politics or money or power. Evangelism, he said, is one of our "pillars" (as important to us as the five pillars of Islam are to Muslim believers). Love of God, he said, begins with God and not us, he said, and God's love is unconditional and unilateral.

* * *

Several speakers stressed the commonalities of commitment and parallels in belief that could allow Muslims and Christians to engage in common action.

Curiously, one topic that went almost unmentioned was the family. Dr. Mohamed Bechari, president of the Federal Society for Muslims in France, mentioned it in passing when he listed areas of common ground: The family is the core of society and the happiness of mankind, he said. He expressed surprise at some Christian clergy who accept "homosexual marriage," but he stopped short of calling for any kind of coordinated Christian and Muslim efforts on family issues.

The general silence on the family and the complete silence on potential common activity to strengthen the family puzzles me. While our traditional family systems and our understandings of gender relations differ (even as they differ within our respective communities), we do believe together that faithful, stable, two-sex marriage is essential to the well-being of society. Are there not ways to work together on family issues?

* * *

What was achieved in New Haven from July 28 to 31?

Christian and Muslim leaders have a better sense of each other as persons. We know whom to call when differences arise. We understand the pain and struggle of Christians in Muslim-dominant societies and of Muslims in Christian-dominant cultures--and if we don't understand, we no longer have any excuse for insensitivity.

Theological gaps which many of us knew only from books were underscored in new ways. The difference between Muslim and Christian understandings of love was significant. Christian love imitates divine love and is unconditional: We love not only our families and our neighbors but our enemies. Muslim love is more discriminating, taking the form of compassion on worthy persons in need (widows and orphans were used as an example). But they are not called to love unworthy persons (someone cited "the arrogant").

In practice, Christians often love only the worthy and fail to love their enemies. But the call to imitate God's love for us "while we were yet sinners" constantly tugs us toward loving more broadly.

I am grateful for the opportunity to meet, eat with, and listen to moderate Muslim leaders from near and far. I look forward to calling some them in order to work for the common good. And the next time I see a negative stereotype of Muslims, I plan to test its validity against some of the individuals I now know.

Posted by David Neff at August 3, 2008 | Comments (7)

Cathy Lynn Grossman's recent USA Today article on William Young's surprise bestseller The Shack is her second in a month, this one shifting attention to the long-developing and growing backlash against the book coming from a number of influential voices concerned about the book's implicit theological claims.

Several conservative Protestant heavyweights--Al Mohler, Chuck Colson, Mark Driscoll, and influential blogger Tim Challies--have sounded off on the dangers of The Shack's vision of God, salvation, and the Church, creating a quartet of caution for the casual Christian reader. These strong cautions are all the more notable in light of the over-the-top endorsement from one of evangelicalism's most respected spiritual sages, Eugene Peterson, which is featured on the book's back cover.

Among other things, this growing backlash broaches important questions about the proper relationship between art, theology, and the Church for evangelicals and their close kin. What does it mean for artists to be faithful to the confessional Christian traditions and communities of which they are a part, especially that largest of communions--the communion of the saints across time, space, and tradition? If we regard the Nicene Creed as a shared expression of that broad communion, what does it mean for an artist, perhaps a writer such as William Young, to be faithful to that confession?

Switching directions, we must also ask what it means for Christian traditions and communities to be faithful to artists and their craft. This, too, is a theological question: How does the Church show good faith toward those sub-creators in God's human economy whose very creative inclinations are evidence that they bear the image of a God who delights in creating? Making a place for art and the artist is a way of affirming the human and creational pattern that the Christian God calls "very good."

My hunch is that we probably see a failure to keep faith on both sides here, and that it would be a good thing for all of God's Church to discuss the when's, where's, why's, and how's of our mutual infidelities.

Along the way we might also want to pause to think about what the phenomenal grassroots popularity of an iconoclastic novel such as The Shack--1.1 million copies in print, 500,000 more to be printed in June, UK rights just purchased--tells us about the attitudes and pastoral realities churches must reckon with on the ground.

Posted by Derek Keefe at May 30, 2008 | Comments (66)

My friend Dean's list of interests on his facebook profile reads as follows: "Interests: You Name It. The World Is An Interesting Place." I tend to share Dean's expansive interests, which partially explains why on a day when I could have blogged about yesterday's ruling allowing gay marriages in California, the global food crisis, continued gnashing of teeth regarding the Evangelical Manifesto, or the critical response to the latest Narnia film that opens this weekend, I'm instead drawn to this Houston Chronicle story about Lone Star Cowboy Church in Montgomery, Texas.

I'm admittedly a latecomer to the cowboy church phenomena, which was reported on in the pages of our magazine some five years ago. And upon reading that Lone Star has its own rodeo arena, which was built almost as soon as the tent church that served the congregation for the first two years, it's tempting to dismissively file the whole movement under news of the weird, as an odd bit of cultural ephemera spun out of American evangelical subculture machine. Yet the Chronicle article also indicates that Lone Star has over 1300 members, and that there are more than 100 churches linked with the Baptist General Convention's Texas Fellowship of Cowboy churches alone. (I highly recommend you take a look at this map, which plots cowboy churches in the Fellowship.)

Clearly, something is going on here, but what? How should we understand what's happening at Lone Star and in the larger movement? Does it represent the expansion of the gospel through the faithful translation of Christianity into the everyday cultural forms of a distinct subcultural people group--an exercise in removing unnecessary barriers and becoming "all things to all people"? Or, does it represent the collapse of the Christian gospel and message into the world of meaning provided by the mythos, language, and forms of the American West's cowboy culture?

While I'm confident the truth lies somewhere between these two poles, it's hard to say where, though I'm definitely nervous about what appear to be the "tribal" markers that bind the movement and its churches together. These tribal dynamics are also clearly on display in other subcultures that have produced churches or movements, such as biker culture, surf culture, or the hippie culture of the 60s and 70s. When churches begin to look like affinity- or interest- groups, and less like God's extraordinary project to transcend cultural divisions by uniting a diverse and motley lot under the the Lordship of God's Christ, the gospel has been diminished. In Christ, there is neither cowboy nor yuppie, biker nor gamer, farmer nor techie. All are one in Christ Jesus.

In an American free-market, voluntary church environment, we'd all do well to scan the pews (or hay bales) of our own churches and see who we've joined ourselves to. My hunch is that we'd find we're probably not much different than our cowboy brothers and sisters in seeking out our cultural kin.

Posted by Derek Keefe at May 16, 2008 | Comments (18)

The Associated Press just reported the upcoming "Evangelical Manifesto," a document signed by 80 evangelicals that will be released Wednesday. It was CNN's lead story Friday night.

The statement, called "An Evangelical Manifesto," condemns Christians on the right and left for "using faith to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible."

"That way faith loses its independence, Christians become `useful idiots' for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology," the draft states.

Evangelicals such as author and speaker Os Guinness and president of Fuller Seminary Richard Mouw signed the statement.

According to the AP, drafters say evangelicals have often expressed "truth without love," helping create a backlash against religion during a "generation of culture warring."

"All too often we have attacked the evils and injustices of others," they wrote, "while we have condoned our own sins." They write, "we must reform our own behavior."

Share this:

Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey at May 2, 2008 | Comments (18)

April 25th marked the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network's annual Day of Silence, described by the Network's website as a "student-led day of action when concerned students, from middle school to college, take some form of a vow of silence to bring attention to the name-calling, bullying and harassment--in effect, the silencing--experienced by LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) students and their allies." Not surprisingly, the nationwide event elicited a range of responses from evangelical Christian groups at both the national and local level, and therefore offers promise as an occasion for further reflection about what form Christian witness should take in a pluralistic democratic society.

Boycott, in the form of students staying home from school that day, was advised by both Concerned Women for America and the American Family Association. This strategy was often joined to protest, as seen at Mount Si High School in Snoqualmie, Washington (an eastside suburb of Seattle). According to a Seattle Times article, not only were 495 out of 1,410 students not at school for the day--"including 85 athletes whose parents had asked that they be excused for their personal beliefs"--but "about 100 people joined the Rev. Ken Hutcherson, a prominent anti-gay-rights activist, in prayer and song that questioned the dedication of a school day to what they said was a controversial political cause." The week before, Hutcherson, pastor of the local Antioch Bible Church, had called for 1,000 "prayer warriors" to join him in an ad in a local paper.

A form of protest was also displayed by Alexander Nuxholl, a sophomore at Neuqua Valley High School in Naperville, Illinois. Nuxholl was granted the right to wear a shirt that read, "Be Happy, Not Gay" on the Day of Silence by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court also ordered the school district not to discipline him for wearing the shirt. Nuxholl's case was litigated by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), a Christian nonprofit legal alliance based in Scottsdale, Arizona.

The ADF also sponsored a countermeasure or alternative to the Day of Silence, a second common strategy for Christian witness. The annual Day of Truth, which came three days after the the Day of Silence, was, according to its website, "established to counter the promotion of the homosexual agenda and express an opposing viewpoint from a Christian perspective." Christian students are encouraged to wear T-shirts and pass out cards (outside of class time) that read:

I'm speaking the Truth to break the silence.
True tolerance means that people with differing--even opposing--viewpoints can freely exchange ideas and respectfully listen to each other.
It's time for an honest conversation about homosexuality.
There's freedom to change if you want to.
Let's talk.

This year marked the fourth for the Day of Truth (roughly 7,000 participants), and the thirteenth Day of Silence (roughly 500,000 participants).

In addition to boycott, protest, and the creation of an alternative, the Day of Silence saw another response from evangelical Christians--participation. The Golden Rule Pledge is promoted by Grove City College Psychology Professor Warren Throckmorton as an option for "straight Christian and conservative students [who] are conflicted about this day. They do not affirm homosexual behavior but they also loathe disrespect, harrassment or violence toward any one, including their GLBT peers." This response urges Christian students to act in accordance with the message on the cards they are urged to give out:

This is what I'm doing:

I pledge to treat others the way I want to be treated.

Will you join me in this pledge?

"Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:31).

The Golden Rule Pledge website features first-hand accounts from Christian students who participated in this year's Day of Silence, including Jordyne Krumroy of Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina, who convinced ASU's Campus Crusade and InterVarsity Fellowship ministries to support Christian students such as her who chose to duct tape their mouths shut for a day.

Evangelicals are by definition a gospel-proclaiming people. Part of our becoming a wise people is learning to match our proclamation both to the manner of the Christ we proclaim, as well as to the occasion before us. Gospel wisdom, then, means not just learning when to speak, but what part of God's good news to speak first, and how that news should be delivered. On occasion, we may even find the best way to begin to "speak" this marvelous news is to remain silent.

Share this:

Posted by Derek Keefe at May 2, 2008 | Comments (19)

Evangelizing persons of other faiths, or even committed atheists, agnostics, or freethinkers, is tricky business in our pluralistic and increasingly politicized religious landscape. In Western cultures where tolerance is preeminent among public virtues, such efforts are generally met with scorn, chastisement, and much journalistic gnashing of teeth. In other parts of the world, interfaith gospelers are subject to far worse than a tongue-lashing from the cultural gatekeepers. Such activity may win them spots in jail, or cost them and their families their livelihood, if not their lives.

Recently we have dipped our editorial toes into the chaotic waters of interfaith relations, whether they take the form of a dialog, as touched on in Richard Mouw's piece, or conversion-seeking proclamation, as argued for in Stan Guthrie's recent editorial on evangelizing the Jews. Having read both pieces, it's clear that Mouw shares the evangelistic imperative born of love highlighted by Guthrie, and that Guthrie shares Mouw's firm belief that whatever the form of interfaith communication, it should be marked by "convicted civility," a term Mouw borrows from venerable church historian and cultural commentator Martin Marty.

With regard to the issue of evangelizing the Jews, I'm also pleased that in response to the World Evangelical Alliance's recent statement that ran in The New York Times, "The Gospel and the Jewish People: An Evangelical Statement," we've decided to host an exchange between Stan Guthrie and Rabbi Yehiel E. Poupko, Judaic Scholar at the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, on the very topic of Christian Evangelism and Judaism. Outside of this exchange, WEA's ad has generated very little public comment, except for this critical response from the Anti-Defamation League, and an angry article in The Jerusalem Post.

Yet the kerfuffle surrounding a recent public statement on Christian-Jewish relations from Christianity's largest global communion, namely Pope Benedict's revision of the Good Friday prayer for the Jews, has not abated. For those who have not followed the story, here's the portion of the prayer judged offensive by some:

Let us pray for the Jews. May the Lord our God enlighten their hearts so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, the savior of all men...Almighty and everlasting God, you who want all men to be saved and to reach the awareness of the truth, graciously grant that, with the fullness of peoples entering into your church, all Israel may be saved.

Several weeks on from Good Friday, the news is still abuzz today with reports of:

1) Continuing critique from those who thought the revision offensive: Agenzia Italia, AFP, Anti-Defamation League.
2) Vatican response and attempts to mend relations with Jews: Catholic World News, United Press International, Catholic News Agency, JTA, AFP, The Times, Reuters, Catholic News Service.
3) Indications of how this situation is shaping the Pope's upcoming visit to the U.S.: New York Times, Zenit, Catholic News Service.

As the world gets smaller, the challenge of interfaith relations only gets bigger, and the need of wisdom greater still...especially for those who are, by definition, gospel people.

Posted by Derek Keefe at April 4, 2008 | Comments (6)

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 | Comments (26)