Dr. Mohler's BlogMay 2008
"An Evangelical Manifesto" -- Continuing the Conversation
Os Guinness is a major intellect in the Evangelical world, and a perceptive critic of the anti-intellectualism and cultural captivity that marks so much of the Evangelical movement. In our conversation, Os clarified several issues. He said that the statement in the Manifesto concerning believers who represent "caricatures of the false hostility between science and faith" did not specifically refer to young earth creationists. He did, however, criticize those behind at least some efforts to include Intelligent Design in public school curricula. In any event, the statement is likely to be perceived by the public as a strong criticism of any young earth position. He also explicitly affirmed his own belief in the exclusivity of the Gospel, making very clear his own conviction that salvation comes only to those who come to Christ by faith. Beyond this, he expanded upon his call for a "civil public square." I greatly appreciated Os Guinness' comments, his response to my analysis, and the opportunity for the conversation. Nevertheless, I retain my main concerns about the Manifesto and its public effect. I do admire and respect many friends involved in the project. At the same time, I remain unconvinced that all involved in the project would interpret these issues in the same way. Public statements and published works would seem to indicate otherwise. I wish that all of those involved in the project would share in Os Guinness's firm statement of the exclusivity of the Gospel. I know several who most certainly would, but others who I am confident could not. Thus, my concern about the Manifesto remains. Evangelicalism is an on-going project and a movement marked by a seemingly permanent identity crisis. We should be thankful for any opportunity to clarify the issues at stake -- especially when we agree that Evangelicals should be defined theologically, above all. ___________________ See my analysis of "An Evangelical Manifesto" here. 
An Evangelical Response to "An Evangelical Manifesto"
The release of "An Evangelical Manifesto" on May 7 caught the attention of the national media, and thus it represents yet another opportunity for evangelical definition. The document, released May 7, also represents a challenge, for its framers hope to redefine the movement in the context of our unsettled times. The Manifesto, released at a press conference at the National Press Club, represents an agenda. The press release offered by the organizers makes that clear: Such dynamics prompted a group of theologians and Christian leaders of considerable academic wisdom to carefully draft 'An Evangelical Manifesto.' This three-year effort has sought to reclaim the definition of what it means to be an Evangelical – a term that, in recent years, has often been used politically, culturally, socially – and even as a marketing demographic. Recognizing that many people outside the movement now doubt that Evangelical is ever positive, and many inside now wonder whether the term any longer serves a useful purpose, they organized a core committee to draft a document that reclaims the term and the calling for both the culture and community of faith. The theological root traces back to the Greek word "euangelion" for 'good news or Gospel.' An identity crisis is the diagnosis, and the framers intend to "reclaim the definition" even as many "now wonder whether the term any longer serves a useful purpose." The framers of "An Evangelical Manifesto" clearly believe that the term remains useful. Redefining its use is their aim. I did not sign the Manifesto, though I find many elements of the document to be very appealing and elegantly composed. I have friends among those who signed the Manifesto, and friends among those who will not sign. In the end, I cannot sign the document for several reasons. These reasons are rooted in my own concern for Evangelical identity, and my belief that this document says far too much on the one hand, and far too little on the other.
The document says a great deal about this confusion, and much of it is helpful and prophetic. I am in total agreement with the argument that Evangelicals "should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally." But when the Manifesto presents a theological definition of Evangelicals, it turns out to be a rather minimal definition. Evangelicals, the document asserts, "are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth." Those are wonderful words filled with Christian content, but they are also words that would be claimed by many who would never claim to be Evangelicals. The definition is just not sufficient. The document proceeds to identify several defining beliefs of Evangelicals. Among these convictions is the belief that "the only ground for our acceptance by God is what Jesus Christ did on the cross and what he is now doing through his risen life, whereby he exposed and reversed the course of human sin and violence, bore the penalty for our sins, credited us with his righteousness, redeemed us from the power of evil, reconciled us to God, and empowers us with his life 'from above.'" That is a substantial statement of the Gospel, but it leaves out the question of the exclusivity of salvation to those who have come to Christ by faith. The use of the phrase "for us" in strategic sentences makes one wonder if room is left for some manner of inclusivism or universalism? The door is certainly not adequately closed. Do all of the signatories announced on May 7 affirm that sinners must come to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved? This is one of the most crucial questions for Evangelical identity. The framers make clear their concern to define Evangelical over against Fundamentalism and Protestant Liberalism. Would they include inclusivists as Evangelicals? Another complication on this score comes from the fact that Evangelicals are identified as "one of the great traditions that have developed within the Christian Church over the centuries." There is a sense in which this is true, of course, but relegating the Evangelical understanding of the Gospel to just one among many Christian traditions undercuts our witness and sows seeds of confusion. "An Evangelical Manifesto" is, at least to a major extent, an exercise in public relations. The document was released at the National Press Club -- not a usual venue for theological discussion. The stated aims of the document are also directed to public relations. The sense of attempting to convince the public that Evangelicals are not what many think them (us) to be pervades the Manifesto. Evangelicals sometimes have to make strong judgments, the authors assert, but only after clarifying that the "Good News" of the Gospel "is overwhelmingly positive, and is always positive before it is negative." Further: "Evangelicals are for Someone and for something rather than against anyone or anything." This is a wonderful statement, and entirely true. Nevertheless, as a statement of public relations it will not get very far -- not if any honest discussion or disclosure follows. As the authors recognize, to be for one principle is to oppose its opposite. Those holding to contrary principles will not be persuaded to cease stating that we are against their principles and aims. Indeed, one of the greatest strengths of the document is its recognition that differences of conviction reach to the most fundamental questions of life. These differences "are not just between personal worldviews but between entire ways of life co-existing in the same society." These differences "are decisive not only for individuals but for societies and entire civilizations." Another great strength of the document is its profound analysis of the cultural crisis and its challenge to Christians and the integrity of Christian faith. The Manifesto is prophetic in indicting Evangelicalism for its many sins, including:
This is a statement worthy of the most serious reflection -- as is this paragraph: All too often we have attacked the evils and injustices of others, such as the killing of the unborn, as well as the heresies and apostasies of theological liberals whose views have developed into ―"another gospel," while we have condoned our own sins, turned a blind eye to our own vices, and lived captive to forces such as materialism and consumerism in ways that contradict our faith. Again, this is a powerful statement. But what follows is a bit troubling. Just a few paragraphs later, the Manifesto reads: All too often we have disobeyed the great command to love the Lord our God with our hearts, souls, strength, and minds, and have fallen into an unbecoming anti-intellectualism that is a dire cultural handicap as well as a sin. In particular, some among us have betrayed the strong Christian tradition of a high view of science, epitomized in the very matrix of ideas that gave birth to modern science, and made themselves vulnerable to caricatures of the false hostility between science and faith. By doing so, we have unwittingly given comfort to the unbridled scientism and naturalism that are so rampant in our culture today. Who are these believers who represent "caricatures of the false hostility between science and faith?" The context would seem to implicate those who believe in a young earth cosmology. This represents millions of Evangelicals -- perhaps by many surveys the vast majority. Are they (we) to be written out of Evangelicalism? If this paragraph does not refer to young earth creationists, to whom could it possibly refer? [Wheaton professor Alan Jacobs comes to the same conclusion in his analysis, published in The Wall Street Journal.] This is one of the chief problems with the document. When it lets loose a salvo of criticism, it is never clear who the intended target really is. Reporters present at the press conference expressed some degree of exasperation at this point. When asked for specifics about who they were criticizing, the organizing committee refused to say. The document points to the politicization of the faith as a main concern. In a crucial section of the text, the Manifesto reads: Christians from both sides of the political spectrum, left as well as right, have made the mistake of politicizing faith; and it would be no improvement to respond to a weakening of the religious right with a rejuvenation of the religious left. Whichever side it comes from, a politicized faith is faithless, foolish, and disastrous for the church – and disastrous first and foremost for Christian reasons rather than constitutional reasons. Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, and nationality, we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality. In our scales, spiritual, moral, and social power are as important as political power, what is right outweighs what is popular, just as principle outweighs party, truth matters more than team-playing, and conscience more than power and survival.
Well, I think that we have seen, in the last 30 years or so - you know, the evangelicals, really became prominent in American political life around 1980 with the formation of the Moral Majority, and I think that many of them have a vested interest in promoting and using their religious leadership to promote a certain kind of political agenda. And when there are those of us who want to say we claim the label, even though we don't necessarily identify with that political agenda, that ideology, this obviously will create some tension. That agenda surely is clarifying. There can be no doubt that far too many Evangelicals have confused the Gospel with a political agenda -- and even with the Republican Party. This can be even worse than theological confusion -- it can represent idolatry. But what the document never makes clear is how to hold to deep moral and political convictions, based in biblical principles, without running the danger of identification with a political agenda -- at least to some extent. Does the Manifesto suggest a Gnostic form of political engagement? Finally, the document is, in essence, a call to civility. Indeed, civility is perhaps the main thrust of the document. The Manifesto seeks to define a civil public space where persons from all belief systems are welcome to contend for their own beliefs and convictions. This public space is a "civil" rather than a "sacred" or "naked" public square. This "civil public square" stands against the theocratic yearnings of the "sacred public square" and the secularism of the "naked public square." In the Manifesto's words: In contrast to these extremes, our commitment is to a civil public square -- a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths too. Thus every right we assert for ourselves is at once a right we defend for others. A right for a Christian is a right for a Jew, and a right for a secularist, and a right for a Mormon, and right for a Muslim, and a right for a Scientologist, and right for all the believers in all the faiths across this wide land. This is a good and helpful statement . . . as far as it goes. The Manifesto is brave in calling for and end to "culture warring" that threatens to unravel the society and shut down civil conversation and deliberation. But its bravery does not extend to any specific proposals about how this can be done. The foundation for this part of the Manifesto appears to be Os Guinness' book, The Case for Civility, which makes precisely the same arguments in precisely the same elegant language -- and with precisely the same limitations. Guinness is a brilliant social analyst and should be counted among the most insightful thinkers in the Evangelical world. But the brilliant insights found in The Case for Civility are, in the main, the same brilliant insights found within an earlier project that was, by his own account, largely his conception -- The Williamsburg Charter of 1988. The limitations of both of his projects are found within "An Evangelical Manifesto," and to devastating result. Civility is urgently important and is central to American order. Civility is a virtue rooted in the fact that Christians understand each human being to be made in the image of God. But neither Guinness nor the Manifesto can construct the framework for civility that Guinness brilliantly imagines. This is due to the fact that we are now dealing with the very fundamental questions of existence that the Manifesto acknowledges; the questions that, in the end, will shape the civilization. Issues such as abortion and marriage are not only important, but urgent. One gains the impression that the civility so prized in this document can only take the form of endless talk and dialogue. That may fit the culture of Washington think tanks, but it does not fit the culture of public policy or the lives most of us lead. The Manifesto is wonderfully prophetic in calling for civility, but it never explains how civility can survive a policy conclusion -- or how civil parties to a conversation about ultimate things can speak the truth and always be considered civil. When the document correctly states, "In a society as religiously diverse as America today, no one faith should be normative for the entire society, yet there should be room for the free expression of faith in the public square," does it mean that there can or should be no normative morality for the public square? Or, one might wonder, would this normative morality (without which no society can survive) be as secularized as the framers of the Manifesto eloquently fear? Where does a commitment to civility meet its limits? Can one speak truthfully of the Gospel, and of the fact that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation, and be considered civil? In the end, I must judge "An Evangelical Manifesto" to be too expansive in terms of public relations and too thin in terms of theology. I admire so much of what this document states and represents, but I cannot accept it as a whole. I want it to be even more theological, and to be far more specific about the Gospel, I agree with the framers that Evangelicals should be defined theologically, rather than politically, culturally, or socially. This document will have to be much more theological for it to accomplish its own stated purpose. Now, perhaps we Evangelicals will all gain by a civil conversation about this Manifesto that calls for civility. That at least would be a good place to start.
"It Feels as if the Soul of Britain is Dying"
Brown argued that, since the 1960s, British society was reshaped, "sending organised Christianity on a downward spiral to the margins of social significance." As he explains: In unprecedented numbers, the British people since the 1960s have stopped going to church, have allowed their church membership to lapse, have stopped marrying in church and have neglected to baptize their children. Meanwhile, their children, the two generations who grew to maturity in the last thirty years of the twentieth century, stopped going to Sunday school, stopped entering confirmation or communicant classes, and rarely, if ever, stepped inside a church to worship in their entire lives. The cycle of inter-generational renewal of Christian affiliation, a cycle which had for so many centuries tied the people however closely or loosely to the churches and to Christian moral benchmarks, was permanently disrupted in the 'swinging sixties.' Since then, a formerly religious people have entirely forsaken organized Christianity in a sudden plunge into a truly secular condition. Just this week, new research validates Callum Brown's analysis. Christian Research released data on trends in British churchgoing that will reveal a very desperate portrait of Christianity in Great Britain. As reported by Ruth Gledhill in The Times [London]: Church attendance in Britain is declining so fast that the number of regular churchgoers will be fewer than those attending mosques within a generation, research published today suggests. The fall - from the four million people who attend church at least once a month today - means that the Church of England, Catholicism and other denominations will become financially unviable. A lack of funds from the collection plate to support the Christian infrastructure, including church upkeep and ministers' pay and pensions, will force church closures as ageing congregations die. In contrast, the number of actively religious Muslims will have increased from about one million today to 1.96 million in 2035. By these projections, attendance in Christian churches will drop to just 350,000 by the year 2030. They will be spread among 10,000 churches, each with an average worship attendance of 35. As Ruth Gledhill explains, the Church of England will then lose all institutional viability. By then, Christianity will have become a minority religion in the United Kingdom, with Muslims far outnumbering active Christians. The same projections indicate that even Hindus will come close to outnumbering active Christians. England is fast transforming itself into a secular state, even as it holds onto its established church, the Church of England. In a separate editorial, Gledhill expressed her lament, noting that "there is something unbearably sad about the plight of Christianity in this country." "It feels as if the soul of Britain is dying," she wrote. Britain's loss of faith is not a new phenomenon, but it is now reaching its terminal stages. The secularization of British society will bring a radical transformation of the culture. The nation will be fundamentally redefined when Muslims outnumber practicing Christians by three to one. As Callum Brown made clear, the death of Christian Britain does not mean that religion is dying. Indeed, various forms of free-style "spirituality" now proliferate. Britain is experiencing the explicit rejection of Christianity -- a belief system fundamental to the nation's history, culture, and laws. Those achievements cannot long survive the death of Christian Britain. British Christianity was for centuries a spiritual force that changed the world. The modern missionary movement began with William Carey, who left England for India in order to share the Gospel of Christ. The movement to end the slave trade can be traced to William Wilberforce and his successful pleas to Britain's Parliament. The Methodists, the Baptists, and any number of other denominational groups emerged out of British Christianity. The Church of England gave birth to a worldwide communion of Anglican churches. Quite soon, all that may be just a series of footnotes in British history books. The secularization of Britain is not something forced upon the nation, but something the nation has done to itself. As Ruth Gledhill expressed in her words of mourning: "It feels as if the soul of Britain is dying." _________________ Photo: London's Westminster Abbey
"The Land of Disappearing Children" -- Japan's Population Crisis
Indeed, Japan has experienced 27 consecutive years of declining birth rates. Within just a few short years the nation will experience massive social problems and a complete breakdown of economic activity. In previous eras, this kind of population loss would be explained by war or some natural catastrophe such as famine or the plague. None of these explanations is relevant to Japan's experience, however. As a matter of fact, the population of Japan actually grew during World War II, only to start falling in the early 1980s. As The Washington Post reports: The number of children has declined for 27 consecutive years, a government report said over the weekend. Japan now has fewer children who are 14 or younger than at any time since 1908. The proportion of children in the population fell to an all-time low of 13.5 percent. That number has been falling for 34 straight years and is the lowest among 31 major countries, according to the report. In the United States, children account for about 20 percent of the population. Japan also has a surfeit of the elderly. About 22 percent of the population is 65 or older, the highest proportion in the world. And that number is on the rise. By 2020, the elderly will outnumber children by nearly 3 to 1, the government report predicted. By 2040, they will outnumber them by nearly 4 to 1. The numbers tell the story. Almost a quarter of Japan's population is 65 and older; only 13.5 percent are children. The inescapable conclusion is that there will soon not be enough Japanese to keep Japan functioning as a nation, society, and culture. The paper calls the reality "a slow-motion demographic catastrophe that is without precedent in the developed world." Looking ahead, the paper assured its readers that it was not overstating the case. Indeed, "The economic and social consequences of these trends are difficult to overstate." The Japan Center for Economic Research predicts that Japan will lose 70 percent of its workers by mid-century. Japan may now be the world's second-largest economy, but it cannot retain that status with a population in severe decline. A society that stops having children is like a healthy person who simply decides to starve himself. This is an act of the human will, not a natural calamity. The population explosion prophets are still warning of a population crisis to come, but they got the story almost perfectly backward when it comes to nations like Japan. Russia and several other European nations face similar crises. Babies are a clear sign of cultural confidence and cultural health. The Washington Post describes this crisis as "Japan's disappearing children." Those words do describe Japan's predicament -- and this crisis will not disappear.
Welcome to the World, Trig Paxson Van Palin
Governor Palin has already made a mark on the political scene. A high school basketball star and beauty queen, she was elected Alaska's governor in 2006. She is often mentioned as a potential running mate for Sen. John McCain. The Palins' other children include Track, their oldest son, who now serves in the U.S. Army. They also have three daughters, Bristol, Willow, and Piper. Trig made news long before he was born, as Alaska's citizens learned that their governor was pregnant. Then, for the Palins, the story got more complicated. This past December, Sarah Palin was told that her baby was likely to have Down syndrome -- just one extra chromosome. As the Associated Press reports: The doctor's announcement in December, when Palin was four months pregnant, presented her with a possible life- and career-changing development. "I've never had problems with my other pregnancies, so I was shocked," said Palin. "It took a while to open up the book that the doctor gave me about children with Down syndrome, and a while to log on to the Web site and start reading facts about the situation." When he was told, Todd Palin quickly said, "We shouldn't be asking, 'Why us?' We should be saying, 'Well, why not us?'" The Palins never considered aborting the baby. That means that Trig Palin is now is a very rare group of very special children, because it is now believed that the vast majority of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome before birth are being aborted. Modern diagnostic tests are driving a "search and destroy mission" to eliminate babies judged to be inferior, disabled, or deformed. Some experts now believe that up to 90 percent of all pregnancies diagnosed as having a likelihood of Down syndrome end in abortion. Back in 2005, ethicist George Neumayr commented: "Each year in America fewer and fewer disabled infants are born. The reason is eugenic abortion. Doctors and their patients use prenatal technology to screen unborn children for disabilities, then they use that information to abort a high percentage of them. Without much scrutiny or debate, a eugenics designed to weed out the disabled has become commonplace." The Palins would not even consider aborting their baby. "We've both been very vocal about being pro-life," Governor Palin said. "We understand that every innocent life has wonderful potential." She loves her baby boy and is proud of him. "I'm looking at him right now, and I see perfection," Palin told the Associated Press. "Yeah, he has an extra chromosome. I keep thinking, in our world, what is normal and what is perfect?" Some ethicists now go so far as to argue for a "duty" to abort a baby with a Down diagnosis. This is an assault upon the dignity of every human being. The fact that so few Down syndrome babies now make it to birth is a sign that America is making its own pact with the Culture of Death.
He will face some unique challenges, but he has a loving family who will face those with him. They will learn together the wonder and beauty of a Down syndrome child and will learn to see the glory of God in his trusting face. Mothers Day 2008 is certain to be a special day in the Alaska Governor's Mansion. What an unspeakable tragedy that so many other homes will have aborted that joy. Welcome to the world, Trig Paxson Van Palin. Your very existence defies the Culture of Death and gives us all hope. _____________________ See photos of Trig Palin and his proud parents here [from The Juneau Empire].
Plant Rights, Screaming Vegetation, and a "Biocentric" Worldview
No one person on the panel knew what to do with that off-hand statement. I think it is safe to say that none of us had ever grieved over the intentional harvesting of vegetation. Now, ethicist Wesley J. Smith indicates that an ethics panel in Switzerland has decided that "the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong." Writing in the current edition of The Weekly Standard, Smith explains that the idea of "plant rights" is now a matter of serious consideration among the Swiss. The background to the current panel is a constitutional clause adopted years ago in Switzerland that demands Swiss citizens to recognize "the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms." Until just recently, no one seems to have expected that this would lead to a plants rights movement. As Smith explains, the Swiss panel came up with a radical conclusion based in a radical worldview: A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric" moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover, that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily." Smith rightly points to this kind of logic as "a symptom of a cultural disease that has infected Western civilization, causing us to lose the ability to think critically and distinguish serious from frivolous ethical concerns." The very idea of "plants rights" indicates a loss of cultural sanity. Until now, this cultural confusion has been most evident in the animal rights movement -- a movement that presents some legitimate ethical concerns but pushes its ideology beyond sanity. The failure to distinguish between human beings and the larger animal world is a hallmark of a post-Christian culture. The extension of this ideology to vegetation is a frightening sign of mass delusion. Wesley Smith gets it just right: Why is this happening? Our accelerating rejection of the Judeo-Christian world view, which upholds the unique dignity and moral worth of human beings, is driving us crazy. Once we knocked our species off its pedestal, it was only logical that we would come to see fauna and flora as entitled to rights. So, now Swiss ethicists are working up protocols on "plant dignity" and determining scenarios that might qualify as a violation of "plant rights." The Swiss panel's report, "The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants," is a wake-up call. The adoption of a "biocentric" worldview is a leap into irrationality. Good arguments can be made for responsible agricultural practices that honor God by demonstrating care for creation. But the ideology of "plant rights" and the suggestion of something like an inherent "right to life" for vegetation is beyond all reason. The most tragic dimension of all this is that a culture increasingly ready to euthanize the old, infanticize the young, and adamant about a "right" to abort unborn human beings, will now contend for the inherent dignity of plants. Can any culture recover from this?
United Methodists Maintain Standards
Meeting for its General Conference in Ft. Worth, Texas, the Methodists voted 517 to 416 to keep the current policy and language in its Book of Discipline. The denomination voted down a proposal to replace the "incompatible with Christian teaching" language with a statement that the church should "refrain from judgment regarding homosexual persons and practices as the Spirit leads us to new insight." As Religion News Service and Christianity Today reported: Many Methodists rose to speak in favor of a clear continuation of traditional teachings, especially for the purpose of evangelizing to a world that they said is beset by moral confusion. "Friends, this is serious business," said the Rev. H. Eddie Fox, director of evangelism for the World Methodist Council. "It is an urgent matter for our church. It matters what we believe and what we practice and we do not meet here in isolation." A group of 300 delegates protested the decision and blamed it, at least in part, on delegates from Africa. As The Dallas Morning News reported: "It was a terrible day," said the Rev. Eric Folkerth, pastor of Northaven United Methodist Church in Dallas. . . . Mr. Folkerth said, "American Methodists are ready for change." But he and others said change was thwarted this time by international delegates, particularly delegates from Africa, whose numbers and influence have grown because the denomination is growing there. Dogo Jean Yoou, a lay delegate from Ivory Coast, agreed that the African delegates oppose relaxing the UMC's stands on homosexuality. "We are still very conservative on this issue," he said. The United Methodist Church has been debating issues of human sexuality for four decades. The controversy is hardly unique to that denomination. The liberal churches often identified as "mainline Protestantism" have been torn asunder by these debates, with the Episcopal Church breaking up in some regions and other denominations attempting to avert immediate disaster by avoiding a decision for as long as possible. The sand in that hourglass is running out. As one United Methodist leader commented, a decision to approve homosexuality and same-sex relationships would signal "the death knell for the church." As some of those pressing for the normalization of homosexuality made clear, they believe that time is on their side. The fact that the most important vote was separated by only 101 votes may indicate that they are right. The next General Conference in 2012 is certain to confront similar efforts. Nevertheless, the denomination's decision to retain its teaching that homosexuality is "incompatible with Christian teaching" should encourage all those working within other denominations and churches to maintain biblical standards. A narrow victory is still a victory. ____________________ Art depicts the historic sanctuary of First United Methodist Church of Huntington, West Virginia.
Grand Theft Decency
While other sectors of the entertainment industry are struggling, video games have seen a 57 percent jump in sales since last March, according to The Washington Post. Forbes reports that the video game market in the U.S. alone is worth $18.8 billion a year. Even in the midst of economic pressures, fans of the Grand Theft Auto series say they will sacrifice other purchases in order to buy the new game -- billed as the most sophisticated video game yet invented. Reviewers praise the game's graphics and technological advances. Ryan Holt, a 21-year-old student at the University of Northern Colorado told The New York Times that he was willing to adjust his lifestyle in order to purchase the game and accessories: "I'd probably give up my cell phone. Probably not food. I like food." The big problem with Grand Theft Auto IV is not its marketing, but its message. The game carries the "M" rating for "Mature" and is to be sold only to customers 17 and older. The label warns of "blood," "intense violence," "partial nudity," "strong language," "strong sexual content," and "use of drugs and alcohol." As one young man told Reuters, "This game has everything -- sex, drugs, cars, money ... anything you want." As Reuters explains: "Grand Theft Auto 4" casts players as an Eastern European immigrant who runs drugs, shoots cops and beats up prostitutes after falling in with a crime syndicate -- stuff that has drawn fire from family groups and politicians. Avid fans like Lorenzo seemed drawn to the excitement -- but only in game play. "Violence is like sex. It sells," Alba said outside the GameStop shop. "I like violence in games, it's cool. Not in real life." Or, as Chris Baker writes at Slate.com: As you'd probably expect from the reputation of the series, "Grand Theft Auto IV" includes--let's quickly consult the label--blood, intense violence, partial nudity, strong language, strong sexual content, and use of drugs and alcohol. Yes, concerned teenage boys of America, if your parents are irresponsible enough to let you get your hands on this, you can still kill and maim and plunder and [deleted] until your heart is full. But there's a difference this time: The violence is no longer cartoonish. Shoot an innocent bystander, and you see his face contort in agony. He'll clutch at the wound and begin to stagger away, desperately seeking safety. After just scratching the surface of the game--I played for part of a day; it could take 60 hours to complete the whole thing--I felt unnerved. What makes "Grand Theft Auto IV" so compelling is that, unlike so many video games, it made me reflect on all of the disturbing things I had done. The release of this latest product in the Grand Theft Auto series is a reminder that games and entertainment products constitute a significant moral challenge -- and a potential minefield for parents. In some sense, we are what we play. This is not to say that every young male playing "Grand Theft Auto" is now or will become a violent sexual predator who steals cars. That is clearly not the case. But it is to say that these players are filling their minds with these images and narratives and they are feeling the competitive exhilaration of engaging in immoral acts as players in a game that engages multiple senses and sensations. This is dangerous stuff for the soul. As Mike Musgrove reports in The Washington Post: I've never found it likely that bloody video games cause bad behavior in kids, but then again, I'd also never pass any of my old copies of the games to a child. So I'm a little unsure about how to react to a recent study showing that the game is more popular than any other among 12- to 14-year-old boys. That's right -- this is the most popular game among 12- to 14 year-old boys. This shocks even one of the game's creators, Lazlo Jones, who told the Post, "If you let your child play this game, you're a bad parent." This game is a signal of where the culture is headed. There is a moral minefield at every turn and no sector of the entertainment industry is safe -- and certainly not the world of video games. Parents have to make hard calls on entertainment options and they have to make their decisions stick. Christian young adults are negotiating a world of seemingly infinite choices -- and every choice is laden with moral significance. The release of Grand Theft Auto IV presents parents with a great teaching opportunity and young adults with a moral choice. This new release reminds us all that a game is often never just a game. _____________________ We discussed this issue on Tuesday's edition of The Albert Mohler Program [listen here].
|
The release of "
Who are the Evangelicals? The issue of Evangelical identity and definition has been central to the Evangelical project from its very beginning in America. Given the nature of the movement, definition is elusive and constantly contested. 
The authors of the document include 
All too often we have trumpeted the gospel of Jesus, but we have replaced biblical truths with therapeutic techniques, worship with entertainment, discipleship with growth in human potential, church growth with business entrepreneurialism, concern for the church and for the local congregation with expressions of the faith that are churchless and little better than a vapid spirituality, meeting real needs with pandering to felt needs, and mission principles with marketing precepts. In the process we have become known for commercial, diluted, and feel-good gospels of health, wealth, human potential, and religious happy talk, each of which is indistinguishable from the passing fashions of the surrounding world. 
The obvious backdrop to this is the 2008 presidential race and the group's assertion that Evangelicalism is too wedded to the Republican Party. Fuller Theological Seminary President Richard Mouw, one of the speakers at the press conference, explained this to 
"It took several centuries to convert Britain to Christianity, but it has taken less than forty years for the country to forsake it." That was the judgment of historian Callum G. Brown in his book, 
The nation of Japan faces a devastating population crisis. The crisis, however, is not a problem of too many people living in Japan, but too few. Japan, with several other nations close behind, faces what we might call a population implosion.
A little boy with an extra chromosome was born on April 18. His name is Trig Paxson Van Palin and his new home is the Alaska Governor's Mansion in Juneau. His mom is 
Trig Paxson Van Palin has an extra chromosome, two proud and loving parents, four very happy siblings, and he will bring his own joy to untold numbers of lives.
Several years ago now, I was appearing on a national network interview program and found myself discussing capital punishment with a woman who, during a commercial break, indicated that she had recently seen a combine going through a wheat field. She was horrified. The wheat was being cut down by thousands of stalks a second. She felt grief for the wheat, she revealed.
The United Methodist Church voted this week to maintain its official policy that homosexual activity is "incompatible with Christian teaching." The policy of the church also prohibits the recognition or celebration of same-sex relationships.
The release this week of the video game Grand Theft Auto IV is predicted to be the biggest event in the entertainment industry this year, with some authorities predicting more than $400 million in sales over the next few weeks.