In a groundbreaking case, a Paris court will decide for the first time whether to dissolve the Church of Scientology in France, which is facing charges of organized fraud.

The demand was made by French prosecutors on Monday (June 15) as they wrapped up their case against the church's Paris headquarters and bookshop. If found guilty, the institutions may also face a nearly $6 million fine.

Six members of the church are also on trial, and may also face heavy fines along with prison sentences if convicted.

The plaintiffs, two former Scientologists, claim the church conned them into spending tens of thousands of dollars in bogus products in the 1990s, including an "electrometer" that the church says can measure energy levels.

But the church, which claims a membership of 45,000 in France, rejects the accusations and claims it is being persecuted.

The plaintiffs, are "apostates who ... want to criticize their ex-religion," Fabio Amicarelli, a European Scientology representative, told French media recently.

While the charges pose the most serious challenge to the French church to date, they are only the latest clash in a nearly two-decade long battle against Scientology. Several fraud cases have already been judged and several members convicted of embezzlement in France, where Scientology is viewed with deep suspicion.

In one case, the head of the church's Lyons chapter was sentenced to 18 months in prison in 1996 for his role in a member's suicide.

Founded in 1954 by late American science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, the church is considered a religion in the United States with adherents that include Hollywood stars Tom Cruise and John Travolta.

The French government, however, lists Scientology as a sect, reflecting an official intolerance of unorthodox religions. Indeed, the government even has an official sect watchdog body -- known as MIVILUDES, the Interministerial Mission for Monitoring and Combatting Cultic Deviances.

A government report published in May said the number of religious sects had tripled in France over the past 15 years to at least 600 different movements.

---

Christianity Today's coverage of Scientology, including a brief explainer of why Christians object to it, dates back to 1969.

Posted by Ted Olsen at June 19, 2009 | Comments (5)

Colorado-based Focus on the Family has pulled an online interview with conservative television host Glenn Beck after concerns were raised about Beck's Mormon faith.

Gary Schneeberger, vice president of media and public relations for Focus on the Family Action, said that "differences in the Mormon faith and the historical evangelical faith are not inconsequential."

"We can, and do, gladly cooperate with friends outside of the evangelical heritage on common causes; but in no case do we intend to alter our clear distinction as unwaveringly grounded in evangelical theology."

Beck has appeared on Focus on the Family founder James Dobson's radio program, and has hosted Dobson on his own former CNN show. Beck is scheduled to debut a new program on Fox News on Jan. 19. Both Dobson and Beck advocated for Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage in California.

Beck's interview with CitizenLink.org, Focus on the Family Action's Web site, touched on his Christmas memories and his recent bestselling book, "The Christmas Sweater."

On Dec. 22, Underground Apologetics, a Wisconsin-based group dedicated to helping Christians "defend their faith," criticized Focus on the Family for not mentioning Beck's membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in its online interview.

"While Glenn's social views are compatible with many Christian views, his beliefs in Mormonism are not. Clearly, Mormonism is a cult," the press release said.

Schneeberger said the criticism from Underground Apologetics had "nothing to do with our decision to pull the article from publication" but admitted that "some from our base" were concerned that the interview aimed to "signal theological compromise."

"We regret having communicated in a way that has caused some confusion both from some within our evangelical base as well as from our friends, like Mr. Beck, who hold a sincere and devout Mormon faith," Schneeberger said. "We intended no insult; we merely miscalculated on
how best to feature Glenn."

Beck said in a statement, "Whatever your beliefs about my religion, the concept of religious tolerance is too important to be sacrificed in response to special interest groups, especially when it means bowing to censorship."

Beck, who has struggled with drug and alcohol abuse, credits his faith with redeeming him from past misdeeds and saving him from the brink of suicide.

Posted by Sarah Pulliam at December 29, 2008 | Comments (18)

Before short-term missions became all the rage in evangelical global outreach, the standard was career missions, where cross-cultural workers would spend decades learning the language and culture of a people in order to share the gospel. In the 19th century many missionaries to Africa, for example, came with their own coffins, never expecting to leave.

Lucette Lagnado's article in the Wall Street Journal on Judaism's Chabad Movement brought to mind some similarities:

Perhaps the most telling story I've heard about Chabad emissaries is that some will buy burial plots once they arrive at their distant outposts: It is a gesture to the community -- and perhaps also to themselves -- that they have come to stay.

Tragically, the burial plots will be used in Mumbai sooner than expected. The Muslim militants who murdered 171 people also attacked the Chabad House in India's financial capital. Among the dead were Rabbi Gavriel Holtzberg and his pregnant wife, Rivka.

Lagnado opens a window to a fascinating and important development in today's Judaism.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at December 4, 2008 | Comments (2)

For the last 11 months, Christians in India's Orissa state and elsewhere have been the objects of hateful persecution. A report by internationnal human-rights investigators, lays out the mistreatment and abuse in unsettling detail.

-

In Orissa State, 65 identified people have been killed and 85 are still unaccounted for.
Among those killed were one man buried alive near the village of Rudangla; several
people burnt to death and others cut into pieces.
- 117 churches of all Christian denominations destroyed. Not a single Hindu temple has
been destroyed � despite allegations of retaliation by Christians.
- Approximately 5,000 homes destroyed.
- An unspecified number of Christian businesses destroyed, with the loss of livelihood for
their owners.
- 54,000 people displaced from their homes, forced to take shelter in 14 State-sponsored
Relief Camps in Kandhamal District; together with many hundreds living in non-State
camps, including 2 �camps� in densely overcrowded buildings in Cuttsack town.
4
- It is estimated that about 20,000 are still living in the jungle or have fled to big cities.
Some may be living with relatives elsewhere.
- In addition to the violence in Kandhamal District, 2 other Districts, Japati and Baragras
District, have also experienced similar atrocities, including killings, looting and burning
of churches and homes. 2 Relief camps have been established for approximately 2,700
people who have had to flee their homes.

Click here for the full report. Warning: Some of the descriptions are disturbing. See CT's November editorial here.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at November 14, 2008 | Comments (4)

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)

Tuesday was the first full day of the �Loving God and Neighbor� conference that is bringing together Christian, Muslim, and (a few) Jewish leaders on the campus of Yale University.

The day�s meetings were kicked off by two articulate and compelling Muslim speakers.

First was the remarkably articulate and charming Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal of Jordan (who attended Princeton for his undergraduate work and holds a Ph.D. from Cambridge). Prince Ghazi characterized the �Common Word� document issued in 2007 by 138 Muslim scholars and clerics as �our extended global religious handshake.� This was not a concession to Christians, he said. The statement was �about equal peace and not capitulation.�

The first item on his list of tension-producing factors between Muslims and Western Christians was �the question of Jerusalem and Palestine� and during a break in the meetings he re-emphasized the issue of the control of and access to Jerusalem as a factor that would have to be resolved before any lasting d�tente could be achieved.

Did Ghazi go over the top when he claimed that hostility to Muslims in Western countries was at a high enough level to warrant worries about internment camps�or even concentration camps�in the near future?

It was encouraging that he treated the Holocaust as a historical fact and cited the standard six-million figure (things that often get denied by Muslims in the Middle East). But it was shocking that he claimed that Western societies were, with respect to Muslims, now comparable to the pre-genocidal prejudices among Rwandan Hutus and Tutsis in 1994.

Following Prince Ghazi was Shaykh Mustafa Ceric, the Grand Mufti of Bosnia. �Ours is not the problem of difference,� said Shaykh Ceric about relations between the three great Abrahamic faiths. �Ours is the problem of similarity.�

�Those who are similar are more severe to each other than those that are different,� he pointed out. �We must learn how to live with our similarities.�

Dr. Ceric preached the value of forgiveness. Having witnessed the terror and brutality of the July 1995 Srebrenica massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims, he has had much to forgive. He told the Yale gathering of Muslims and Christians that �the human being has the right to �an eye for an eye.�� But the right to revenge is balanced by Islamic teaching: �If you forgive, you will be forgiven in the world to come, and [here my notes are a bit shaky] it will be your propitiation.�

But Ceric startled several evangelical listeners when he suggested that not everyone was worthy of love all the time. While he talked about love for widows and orphans, for example, he named �the arrogant� as an example of those who should not be loved. This contrasts sharply with Christian notions of love, in which we are called to love unconditionally �because he first loved us.� And the difference between the two notions of love became a point of discussion.

Yale theologian Miroslav Volf made a point of explaining the Christian view of love in his panel presentation just before lunch. Contrasting with another Muslim cleric�s assertion that we cannot speak of love as being of the essence of God, but only of love as God�s actions, Volf read the locus classicus from 1 John 4:7-21, with its famous sentence, �God is love.� Because God loves (among the persons of the Trinity) before the world comes into existence, said Volf, God�s love is not reactive, but is of his essence.

The Muslim and Christian presentations on Tuesday were characterized by good will, but neither group backed away from the fundamentals of their faith. Critics of the 2007 �Loving God and Neighbor Together� document feared that it was not as explicitly Christian as it ought to have been. But if the conference is any indication, their concerns were unfounded. Explicitly Christian assertions of the divinity of Jesus, the Triune nature of the Godhead, and the unconditional nature of Christian love were the order of the day.

Posted by David Neff at July 30, 2008 | Comments (11)

Filed: 7:05 AM, July 30, 2008

Senator John Kerry kicked off the �Loving God and Neighbor in Word and Deed� conference (also known as the �Common Word� conference) Monday night with a largely unsurprising, but welcome speech. He was, after all, preaching to the choir: Christian and Muslim leaders from around the world who want to find a way to live together peacefully.

Kerry began by telling his roughly 150 listeners that the meeting they were attending at Yale University �can help change the world,� while warning that pessimism about future relationships between the Muslim world and the West hands demagogues who play to pessimism about the inevitable violent clash of cultures and religions. �You have placed yourselves among those who are on the right side of the debate,� he told them. �We must love one another or die.�

Kerry, who is a direct descendant of Puritan governor John Winthrop, famous for his �city on a hill� sermon, recounted for the benefit of the global audience the way in which early American history was shaped by a series of bitter religious splits. But the fruit of that early experience of division was a commitment to welcoming all faiths, he said.

Kerry balanced his assertion that �we all worship the One God, the same God� with a plea that religious differences not be played down among the Abrahamic faiths. We don�t need to succumb to �mush� in order to find tolerance. Nor do we need to remove the influence of faith from our public life, he said. �If we aren�t shaped by our faith, we don�t have faith.�

Our goal should be a politics that seeks the global common good, Kerry said, not just the politics that cares for the people of one nation. He cited Vatican II documents to support this planetary notion of common good politics.

The audience gave Kerry a courteous welcome, but none of his comments drew applause until he called for the US to put Middle East peace back on the mainstream foreign policy agenda, and to do it in a way that would deal with �everyone�s grievances.�

Most quotable line of the evening: �Faith may be worth dying for, but it cannot be worth killing for.�

Kerry has gone back to Washington, but the choir has stayed behind to hear each other sing. The panel discussions today will be less inspirational and motivational and will deal with substantive issues. The dozen or so Muslim and Christian panelists Tuesday include evangelical leaders such as Miroslav Volf (Yale), Peter Kuzmic (Croatia), Tukunboh Adeyemo (Kenya), Martin Accad (Lebanon).

Posted by David Neff at July 30, 2008 | Comments (9)

Remember those open-exchange letters last fall between Muslim and Christian leaders? The first, �A Common Word Between Us and You,� was signed by 138 Muslim scholars and clerics and called for a new level of engagement between the two faith groups based on what they said was the �common ground� between Islam and Christianity: love of God and love of neighbor.

The response, �Loving God and Neighbor Together,� was penned by scholars at Yale Divinity School and heartily affirmed the need for deeper understanding between the two faiths (though that letter focused more on relational bridge-building and less on theology). Some 500 Christian leaders signed the document, including pastors Bill Hybels and Rick Warren, missions expert Jonathan J. Bonk, National Association of Evangelicals� president Leith Anderson, theologian John Stott, and CT editor in chief David Neff. (The letter was also met with criticism from prominent evangelical leaders.)

Now the two letters seem to be bearing their intended fruit, as next week Yale will be hosting a three-day conference bringing together 150 Christian and Muslim leaders for workshops and panel discussions on global interfaith relations. The conference was planned by the drafters of "Common Word" and the Yale Center for Faith & Culture�s director Miroslav Volf, who will be teaching a Yale course on religion and globalization this fall with Tony Blair.

The conference is one in a series intended to promote relational ties and peacemaking initiatives. The other conferences will be held at Cambridge (October), the Vatican (November), Georgetown (March 2009), and the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute in Jordan (October 2009).

Next week�s conference and those following it will likely inspire similar disagreements as did the original letters about whether Christianity and Islam share as much �common ground� as the first letter suggested, and what our faithful response should be to calls for interfaith understanding. (Evangelism? Separation? Peacemaking? All of these in different contexts?) Fortunately, the evangelicals attending�David Neff, Nigerian pastor Tokunboh Adeyemo, Robert Schuller, and Warren Larson, director of the Zwemer Center for Muslim Studies at Columbia International University, among others�have already been thinking biblically about the implications of the letters, and should be able to translate the conference�s outcomes to those of us eager to see its results.

See CT's prior coverage of the letters:

Foreign Correspondence | by Jocelyn Green
Muslim and Christian leaders seek common ground in conciliatory letters.

Speaking Out: The Peacemaking Process | by J. Dudley Woodberry
A call to evangelicals to respond to a significant Muslim overture.

Wheaton College Administrators Remove Names from Christian-Muslim Statement | by Ted Olsen
'My eagerness to support the statement�s strengths caused me to move too quickly,' president Duane Litfin tells student newspaper.

Posted by Katelyn Beaty at July 22, 2008 | Comments (5)

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)

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 | Comments (4)

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 | Comments (16)

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 | Comments (0)

Hindu nationalists began burning churches and Christian houses in the east Indian state of Orissa on Christmas Eve. The violence continues, although today it seems to have abated somewhat.

Dozens are injured, many buildings have been destroyed, and the death toll is at 4 (three Hindus killed by police as they burned down the police station, and one Christian killed in the riots).

Compass Direct is reporting higher numbers than those confirmed by the police:

Jacob Pradhan, a Christian leader in Kandhamal district, told Compass that at least four Christians have been killed and more than 50 churches and 200 houses razed or damaged.

Telephone outages and VHP roadblocks made confirming reports �extremely difficult.�

The Associated Press reported that,

On Thursday a mob of Hindus defied a curfew and burned down the house of Radhakant Nayak, a member of India's upper house of parliament and a Christian leader in the area, Nayak told the CNN-IBN news channel.

Also, 11 churches were ransacked and burned in Kandhamal district of Orissa state, the Press Trust of India quoted unnamed police officials as saying.

Meanwhile, in the village of Brahmangaon, a group of Christians burned down several Hindu homes in an apparent retaliation for the attack on churches. Angry Hindus then burned down the village police station, complaining of a lack of protection, a local police official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to reporters.

At least 25 people�both Christian and Hindu�have been arrested so far, and the federal government has announced that it will send in paramilitary troops.

The perpetrators claim that they were defending a Hindu leader who heads an anti-conversion campaign; Christians in Orissa say the attacks were to prevent a Christmas Eve performance that could have led to conversions; AP says it boils down to controversy over thousands of conversions to Christianity in the past few years, �Hindu groups have long charged Christian missionaries with trying to lure the poor and those who occupy the lowest rungs of Hinduism's complex caste-system away with promises of money and jobs.�

The Orissa government has ordered a judicial probe into the attacks, in response to claims that the violence was not spontaneous but sponsored by saffron activists.

Time warns against chalking it all up to religion:

As with most communal violence in India, this latest explosion of hatred is the result not only of religious differences but of a tangled intersection of political power, communal prejudice and the injustices of Hinduism's archaic caste system.

However, in a place where religion permeates everything, it�s not helpful to try to separate religion from political power, prejudice, or the caste system�especially as the hard-line Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is gaining power. Orissa is currently governed by a BJP ally.

Posted by Susan Wunderink at December 28, 2007 | Comments (8)

One of the most startling images from the Viet Nam war was the self-immolation of Buddhist monk Thich Quang Duc. On June 11, 1963, the monk burned himself to death at a busy Saigon intersection. (You can see Malcolm Brown�s famous news photo here and read part of David Halberstam�s eyewitness report for the New York Times halfway through this Wikipedia article.)

Thich Quang Duc was protesting the anti-Buddhist discrimination of Ngo Dinh Diem�s regime. But the disturbing image of his sacrifice seared itself into the brains of people around the globe. At the time, I didn�t understand the logic of self-immolation, but I was deeply moved.

Today Buddhist monks are once again taking to the streets of a South Asian nation, risking their bodies in nonviolent protest against an oppressive regime. This time the country is Myanmar (or Burma, as most Americans still refer to it).

This morning, the AP reported from Yangon (Rangoon):

Soldiers in Myanmar pounded down on dissenters Friday by swiftly breaking up street gatherings of die-hard activists, occupying key Buddhist monasteries and cutting public Internet access. The moves raised concerns that a crackdown on civilians that has killed at least 10 people this week was set to intensify.

By sealing Buddhist monasteries, the government seemed intent on clearing the streets of monks, who have spearheaded the demonstrations and are revered by most of their Myanmar countrymen. This could embolden troops to lash out harder on remaining protesters.

And in the Washington Post, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson commented on the spiritual power of the Buddhist monks� protest.

[T]hese protests have ... shown that nonviolence need not be tame or toothless. The upside-down bowls carried by some of the monks signal that they will not accept alms from the leaders of the regime, denying them the ability to atone for bad deeds or to honor their ancestors. These chanting monks are playing spiritual hardball.

Gerson then mentioned the familiar spiritual analogs in the U.S. Civil Rights Movement and the spiritual revolutions that helped to bring down Communism in Eastern Europe. �Religious dissidents have the ability not only to organize opposition to tyrants but also to shame them. Political revolutions often begin as revolutions of the spirit.�

Gerson uses the language of spirituality to describe these bold moves against evil and on behalf of freedom. It is ironic that the words spiritual and spirituality have taken on such warm, fuzzy tones in contemporary American speech. They convey the image of spiritual drifters, people who are not anchored to any strong beliefs but are constantly going with the flow as they quest for the next feel-good experience.

Maybe, as these monks face the tear gas and truncheons of the oppressor, they can help us reclaim the hard edge of spirituality in our own culture.

* * *
P.S. Buddhists aren't the only ones resisting the Myanmar government. Christians have also risked their lives in the struggle for freedom. But Christians are largely located in tribal regions away from urban centers like Yangon. For past Christianity Today coverage of tribal Christian resistance see "Burma's Almost Forgotten." And to learn how Christianity came to Burma, you can order Christian History and Biography issue 90, which tells the story of Ann and Adoniram Judson, early missionaries and Bible translators.

Posted by David Neff at September 28, 2007 | Comments (1)

Michael Glatze, former head of Young Gay America, says he's no longer interested in a "gay identity" and has been healed from homosexual desires. He also says he was baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) earlier this year.

The Christian Post, a website affiliated with the World Evangelical Alliance, this week published an editorial saying that its rejoicing over the former outweighs its concern over the latter.

"The story of change should be used by believers to open the eyes of others like him and to lead them out of the homosexual lifestyle into a more godly one. And doing so is not an endorsement of the Mormon church," the publication said. "Glatze should be accepted for who he is -- not the result of Mormon conversion, but one of the latest and most prominent examples of former homosexuals who came to acknowledge homosexuality as sin and made the decision to turn away from the sinful lifestyle. And because Glatze's conversion is more likely to pull people away from homosexuality than draw people towards the Mormon church, believers should be more concerned about Glatze returning to homosexuality than him joining the Mormon church."

Ex-Gay Watch's Eugene Wagner says the Christian Post is essentially telling its readers the ends justify the means. "One wonders if ex-gay Scientologists would receive a similarly warm welcome," he writes.

Posted by Ted Olsen at July 19, 2007 | Comments (59)

While tens of thousands of kids head out to Christian camps, Camp Quest is offering an alternative for those who take their summer recreation without God. About 150 young people attend Camp Quest programs in Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, California, and Ontario, according to an article in the Chicago Tribune.

The founder, Edwin Kagin, is legal director for the group American Atheists. He said the atheist camp was founded after the Boy Scouts barred atheists and gays from leadership roles during the 1990s. "We wanted a camp not to preach there is no God," said Kagin, "but as a place where children could learn it's OK not to believe in God."

The Tribune interviewed several young campers in Ohio about their beliefs, or lack thereof. I don't think Christians have a lot to worry about. Here is a sampling:

"[Sophia] Riehemann notes that a secular perspective takes away childhood joys other kids have, such as Christmas. But that doesn't bother her. 'They have Santa Claus,' she said, 'and we have Isaac Newton.'"

Actually, Sophia, I hate to break this to you, but you have Santa Claus, and we have Isaac Newton.

Then there is Allison Page, who is described as a 9-year-old only child. Reflecting on the biblical story of Cain and Abel, Allison opines, "It just doesn't make sense. A brother wouldn't kill his brother."

Ah, the innocence of children. Just wait until you have siblings, Allison.

Posted by Stan Guthrie at June 29, 2007 | Comments (65)

One of the most frequent reader responses to David Neff's article on Knocking, the PBS documentary on Jehovah's Witnesses, is that it did not address the allegations against church officials of abuse and coverups.

It really wasn't relevant to a discussion of this particular documentary, but yes, we are aware of the cases. In fact, we covered them before the rest of the media.

And now there's a big development: silentlambs, a Jehovah's Witness-focused victims rights organization similar to the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP), discovered that the Jehovah's Witnesses recently settled 16 abuse lawsuits. The organization says other abuse suits are still pending, but doesn't know how many.

One odd personal anecdote:

A couple of weeks ago, I answered a knock at the door and found two eager young evangelists. I was watching my young son at the time, and was unable to invite them in, but I let them ask their lead-in question: "Do you think that the scandals in the various churches have affected their ability to minister effectively?" (I'm paraphrasing here; knowing a bit of JW theology, it's possible--even likely--that their question may have ended in a slightly different phrase than "minister effectively" and they might have had another word for "churches".)

"I'm not sure what you mean by the scandals," I said, thinking at the time that they were from evangelical and evangelistic church down the street. (They were dressed too casually to be Mormons.)

"You know, like pedophile priests," said the woman evangelist, the only one who talked during our brief conversation.

"Well, if you mean those particular priests, then yes, of course it's going to affect their ability to minister," I said. "If you mean the churches' witness or the witness of the larger body of Christ, I guess my view is that God always works amid man's massive sinfulness, and that when Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against the church, he was talking about the hell of sin in the church as much as he was talking about anything. There are always consequences for sin, and I think we're seeing a lot of that right now, but the church is the Body of Christ and he's bigger than these scandals."

She smiled. "Sounds like you know your Bible," she said, and handed me her literature. "Here are just some items to help you as you read your Bible and look for answers..."

It was then that I saw the Watchtower Society name on the material. I handed it back. "No thanks," I said. They smiled and thanked me for my time, and were starting to turn around when I decided it wouldn't hurt to ask my question. I was curious about whether they had actually planned to use the Jehovah's Witness abuse scandal as an evangelistic tool. If so, that would have made quite an article.

"Um, you do know that one of the biggest abuse scandals right now is in the Jehovah's Witnesses, right?" I asked. It was immediately clear from the woman's expression -- a grimace, then the smile again -- that they had not intended to use their own scandal in their pitch.

"Oh," she said, "you mean that one case where a man followed a boy into the bathroom...?"

"No, actually, not just that. Massive numbers of accusations," I said.

"Well, the difference in our church is that we kick those people out as soon as we learn about the situation," she said.

"Actually, I work for a magazine that has done some reporting on this," I said, "and the big issue for me was that people making the accusations were saying they got kicked out because they didn't have 'two or three witnesses' to the abuse."

I can't remember exactly what she replied, but she said she was sure that I wasn't quite right about that. And by now she was eager to take me up on my earlier goodbye. She had already moved a step or two back.

"Well, anyway," I said, "I'm not interested in arguing about abuse cases. That's my day job and I'm watching my son right now, happily not talking about this kind of thing. But really. You might want to think about another lead-in question."

I'm curious: Did anyone else get a JW visit lately with this opening line? Does anyone know if these opening lines come from a central office, or are they the responsibility of the individual missionaries?

Posted by Ted Olsen at May 24, 2007 | Comments (95)

Wiccans seem to feel discriminated against, despite the fact that in my local bookstore carries as many shelves of books on the subject as it has shelves for mainstream religions. But, The New York Times reports that Wiccans are afraid of even telling their families about their religious beliefs.

Among the most popular religions to have flowered since the 1960s, Wicca � a form of paganism � still faces a struggle for acceptance, experts on the religion and Wiccans themselves said. In April, Wiccans won an important victory when the Department of Veterans Affairs settled a lawsuit and agreed to add the Wiccan pentacle to a list of approved religious symbols that it will engrave on veterans� headstones.

But Wicca in the civilian world is largely a religion in hiding. Wiccans fear losing their friends and jobs if people find out about their faith.

Interestingly, it seems that one of the fears of those who opposed children reading the Harry Potter books were well founded. "Wiccans face less backlash now than in the past. The Internet provides information about Wicca, and the popularity of the Harry Potter novels has made magic seem a force for good, scholars and Wiccans say. "

Posted by Rob Moll at May 16, 2007 | Comments (32)